Business Before Questions

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That the Humble Address of 31 January, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Lea Paterson to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 14 March 2022, was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Northern Ireland Protocol

Deidre Brock: What recent progress the Government has made in negotiations with the EU on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Tan Dhesi: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on negotiations on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Brandon Lewis: I begin with some brief remarks regarding the public apology to be delivered on Friday 11 March by the Northern Ireland parties to victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse.
The Hart report into historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland was published in 2017. I particularly thank and note the hard work of the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland civil service and my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who put so much time and focus into this, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who delivered the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act in December 2019, securing a key recommendation of the Hart report to establish a redress system for victims who suffered abuse while resident in these institutions in Northern Ireland.
It is only right that victims and survivors are now receiving a formal apology for the abhorrent abuse they suffered while residing in institutions that were meant to care for them. This is another key recommendation of the Hart report, and it is to be welcomed. For too many years, the voices of victims and their appeals for help went unheard, and on 11 March they will receive a full and unconditional apology that is so deserved.
In answer to Questions 1 and 9, I regularly meet Cabinet colleagues to discuss Northern Ireland matters, including the Northern Ireland protocol. The situation in Northern Ireland is serious, and the Government are keeping all options available to make sure we achieve a positive outcome.

Deidre Brock: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s statement.
The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine threatens to undermine global food security, including for people across these islands, by cutting the world off from 30% of all grain supplies and undermining global production of fertiliser for other foodstuffs. Unbelievably, recent media reports suggest that senior Brexiteers are pressing the Government to trigger article 16 and proclaim unfinished business with the EU. Such action would be reckless and unnecessary even without a war raging on the European continent. Will the Government take triggering article 16 off the table once and for all?

Brandon Lewis: Absolutely not. We are very clear that we have to keep all options on the table. Article 16 is part of the protocol and, if we cannot resolve these issues, it is the proper legal process to take things forward. Ultimately, the right result, and the result on which we and the Foreign Secretary are focused, is getting a resolution by agreement with the EU. Be in no doubt that we are determined to make sure Northern Ireland can access goods from Great Britain in the way it should, which we should all support.

Lindsay Hoyle: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, not here.

Bill Cash: Many of us in this House are deeply concerned about the lack of progress in these negotiations. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the sovereignty issue for Northern Ireland still remains on the table with regard to EU lawmaking? Although the context is quite different, it is worth remembering that we are also dealing with the Ukrainian situation, which is also an issue of sovereignty.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important and accurate point. The reality is that we have not seen enough progress, and are not yet seeing enough flexibility and pragmatism from the EU. What is positive is that there is a recognition now, including in the conversations I have had with Vice-President Šefčovič, that issues with the protocol need to be resolved. We all want to see that happen at a much faster pace, and to see more flexibility on all these issues, both on trade and, as he rightly says, on remembering that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and its internal market.

Neil Hudson: We know that viruses and many infectious agents do not stick to international, let alone domestic, borders, as we have seen in both the human and animal health settings. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree that  if the UK and the EU were to agree a veterinary and SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—agreement, that would not only protect the biosecurity of the UK, but facilitate trade and the movement of plant and animal produce between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend gives an example of one area where we are keen to see flexibility from the EU, so that we can see some resolution. We have put forward a range of constructive proposals to meet the objectives—respecting the single market of the EU while making sure that we achieve our prime priority, which is protecting all aspects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—such as the green channel proposals, which can deal with east-west customs and those SPS burdens that he mentioned. We have to make sure that we find a resolution that works, and that means goods can flow from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—the goods that are not at risk of moving to the EU—in the way they always have done.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, Peter Kyle.

Peter Kyle: The Prime Minister has told the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) that negotiations on the protocol have only a 30% chance of success. Does the Secretary of State share that assessment?

Brandon Lewis: I am not sure I am in a position to give betting odds in terms of percentages. The experience we have had with the EU so far, in the past six to nine months, has shown us a lack of the pragmatism and flexibility that we need to see. We have not seen the EU move in a way that allows us to resolve the issues of the protocol, either the trade issues or the wider issues of identity and sovereignty. It is important that we do that. We have to be realistic about the reality of that lack of progress and flexibility, which is why I am clear that we take no options off the table.

Peter Kyle: The reason the Secretary of State cannot give a direct answer to the question is because Ministers and the Prime Minister have been telling so many people informally so many different answers. That is a reason why there is such a lack of trust in the Government at the moment. Queen’s University Belfast has just carried out a poll, which found:
“The UK government is by far the most distrusted…of all actors”.
That is because so much is happening in the shadows; Ministers are telling people different things behind closed doors. Since the Executive collapsed, there has been no statement to the House. Following five rounds of negotiations between the UK and the EU Governments, there has not been a single statement to the House. Will the Secretary of State promise to bring discussions out of the shadows and start making statements to the House, so that we can have things on the record and not behind closed doors?

Brandon Lewis: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands how negotiations need to work. We have been clear that it is right and appropriate that we have the space to have those private negotiations with the EU, which is why we have not gone out and publicly outlined some of the specific details we have put. But  we have been very clear, and I am very clear publicly as well as privately, that we take no options off the table. We do need to resolve this. There is a point at which there is a judgment call for the UK Government to make on whether those negotiations are able to progress in a way that gives us confidence that we can get to a positive resolution. We have not seen that flexibility from the EU yet, but we will continue to strain every sinew, and the Foreign Secretary continues to talk to Maroš Šefčovič, to do everything we can to get a resolution that works. But we have to be very clear: this is about a resolution that respects all aspects of the Good Friday agreement and protects the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

David Jones: The period of purdah in the run-up to the Northern Ireland Assembly election is fast approaching. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the need to make real, serious progress before that period commences? Does he anticipate that such progress will be made?

Brandon Lewis: It is important that we get progress as quickly as possible, regardless of the pre-election period in Northern Ireland, because every day that we are not seeing that flexibility from the EU is another day when consumers in Northern Ireland cannot access products; when the Jewish community cannot access, technically, under the EU provisions, kosher food; when businesses cannot get access to the products they need; and when more than 200 Great Britain businesses are not supplying Northern Ireland. That affects the economy of both Northern Ireland and the wider UK, and we need to resolve that as quickly as we can.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Further to that answer, may I draw to the Secretary of State’s attention the situation of my constituent from Dromore who is disabled and confined to a wheelchair? Three weeks ago, the ramp on the back of her disability-adapted motor vehicle broke. When she went to order the spare part from the supplier in England, she was told it could not be sent to her because she was not registered with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is precisely the kind of difficulty that the protocol is causing for ordinary people in Northern Ireland and the idea that we just ignore it, sweep it under the carpet and forget about article 16 ignores the rights of my constituents.

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are multiple examples out there, whether it is the issues for the Jewish community that I just outlined or the individual case he has. Both he and I have heard of cases of other people who are unable to access products and goods, some of which are very important so that they can continue to live their lives in the way that any other UK citizen could. That is not good enough. We need to be clear with the EU that its current lack of flexibility puts at risk the very thing that the protocol was there to protect: the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. It is right that we keep the pressure on. We will strain every sinew, and I hope the EU will show flexibility and pragmatism to resolve the issue that it now recognises, which is that the protocol is not working and is, I have to say, just not sustainable in its current form.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: At this time, households throughout the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, are struggling because of rapidly increasing home-heating costs. In Northern Ireland, we are subject to European Union VAT rules, which means that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to reduce VAT on home-heating oil, he would need the permission of the EU and all 27 member states. Surely, it cannot be right that my constituents are being deprived of the support they need from the Government because of the protocol.

Brandon Lewis: In February this year we put a further £250 million into the Executive to allow them more flexibility, on top of their underspend, to support people at a time when there are such pressures. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight another of the many areas where the protocol is creating real problems on the ground for people in their everyday lives. We must remember that the protocol itself says it will not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities; the right hon. Gentleman has given yet another example of how the implementation of the protocol is doing exactly that. That has to stop.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Richard Thomson.

Richard Thomson: I associate myself and my party with the Secretary of State’s remarks at the outset about victims of historical abuse and the forthcoming apology.
Another important part of the Northern Ireland protocol is article 3, which says:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that the Common Travel Area and the rights and privileges associated therewith can continue to apply…in particular with respect to free movement to, from and within”—
the island of Ireland—
“for Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of their nationality.”
Does the Secretary of State recognise the potential economic and political strain that the introduction of an electronic travel authorisation system could put on freedom of movement across the border? What engagement does he plan to have with the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic and their partners in the EU in respect of how to make sure such frictions do not take effect?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that throughout the pandemic we have made sure we have kept the common travel area flowing and open. That has not necessarily been the case on the part of the Irish Government at certain points, but we have done that; we think it is important and we will continue to do that. I am looking to have further talks with the Irish Government. My officials have been talking to them about all these issues this week and last week, and I will continue to do that myself as well.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

John Lamont: What plans his Department has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Damien Moore: What plans his Department has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Richard Holden: What plans his Department has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Conor Burns: Next month marks 75 years since the young Princess Elizabeth made her famous pledge:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service”.
My Department is working closely with colleagues across Government, and we will play our full part in celebrating the achievement of Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her platinum jubilee. It will be the nation’s opportunity to recognise all that she has given to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, to express to her all she means to us, and to say to her with gratitude and in unity: long may she reign over us—God save the Queen.

John Lamont: I very much associate myself with the Minister’s remarks. I know the celebration of the platinum jubilee will be a cross-Government effort, but will he assure me that he is working with the devolved Administrations to ensure it is an entire-UK event, with all parts of the United Kingdom joining together to celebrate this momentous occasion?

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is an occasion that should unite the whole of the United Kingdom—all regions and all nations of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working closely with local authorities and the Government in Northern Ireland to make sure that this is something that brings communities together. We will want to remember some of the 25 occasions that the Queen has visited Northern Ireland: three of them as Princess Elizabeth and 22 of them as Queen. We want to involve young people and we want to use the opportunity of the jubilee to celebrate the best of Northern Ireland.

Damien Moore: I recently was proud to join colleagues from across the House in setting up the all-party group for the Queen’s platinum jubilee. Can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that the celebration extends across the United Kingdom and that it is used to showcase the benefits of our UK, with Northern Ireland as an integral part of it?

Conor Burns: This occasion should bring us all together. In that light and specifically with reference to Northern Ireland, I would like to welcome the comments of the Leader of Sinn Fein who said that she wanted to
“extend to the British Queen a word of congratulations because 70 years is quite some achievement.”
She said:
“That is what you call a lifetime of service.”
Those comments have made it easier for us in Northern Ireland to celebrate this in all communities across the whole of Northern Ireland.

Richard Holden: The platinum jubilee presents a great opportunity to celebrate and reaffirm the place of all parts of our United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland, which, this year, has celebrated its centenary  year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the celebrations will include UK-wide events, including in Northern Ireland, to celebrate all 70 years of Her Majesty’s service? Will he also encourage all primary school-aged children in North West Durham to take part in my competition to design a platinum jubilee card for Her Majesty?

Conor Burns: The example that my hon. Friend gives of the competition that he is running in his own constituency will, I am sure, be replicated across the House. I can give him the assurance that Northern Ireland will participate in all of the national events around the jubilee: the platinum pudding competition; the big jubilee lunch. This is a great celebration for us all to enjoy in a spirit of unity.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister was right to reflect on the comments from the Leader of Sinn Fein. They are rare and he will know that, in Northern Ireland, there still pervades a lack of generosity about the huge commitment and dignity that Her Majesty has shown our United Kingdom. He will also know that there is a stark contrast between the Northern Ireland Office’s position on celebrating the centenary last year, with the construction of a forum and the allocation of funds, and the tame approach when it comes to the platinum jubilee. Will the Minister outline whether he will dedicate significant resource, so that we can celebrate this historic achievement in style?

Conor Burns: I do not totally agree with the characterisation of the hon. Gentleman around the centenary programme that the Northern Ireland Office ran. I thought that it was bold, that it was inclusive and that it recognised the unique circumstances—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed it. Sorry, I misheard him. Mr Speaker, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am so used to criticism from the Democratic Unionist party that that rare outbreak of consensus passed me by. I can give him my total assurance that we will be marking this jubilee with full throttle, joy and celebration, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be coming forward with some very innovative ideas about how we will mark it, especially in Northern Ireland.

Promoting Trade and Investment

Greg Smith: What steps his Department is taking to promote trade and investment in Northern Ireland.

James Daly: What steps his Department is taking to promote trade and investment in Northern Ireland.

Conor Burns: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) that it is particularly good to see him in his place today?
I recently attended the Northern Ireland Day at the Dubai Expo, where I met many Northern Irish businesses already exporting globally, including White’s Oats, Kiverco and Greenfields. We also had the opportunity to meet with two sovereign wealth funds, which, I am pleased to report to the House, have accepted our invitation to  come to Northern Ireland and look at the opportunities to invest in Northern Ireland as part of their programme of investing in the United Kingdom.

Greg Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Thanks to our exit from the European Union, the United Kingdom is able to strike trade deals around the world without being constrained by the bureaucrats in Brussels. Can he assure me that he is working with his colleagues in the Department for International Trade to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland which export their products are given full and due consideration in all trade deal negotiations?

Conor Burns: I can assure my hon. Friend that, as a former Minister of State for Trade Policy, I bring that worldview to my role as Minister of State in Northern Ireland. The short answer to his question is yes; I am delighted that we have now opened a new Department for International Trade hub in the heart of Belfast. I recently met the Economy Minister, Gordon Lyons at the Northern Ireland Showcase and we introduced him to the President of the Board of Trade before Christmas. We have put £8 million into Invest NI to help it to promote Northern Ireland abroad. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom’s offer to the world and will benefit fully from our international trade agreements.

Colum Eastwood: While it is obviously important to bring investment into Northern Ireland, my constituents in Derry are struggling right now with soaring energy bills. A mile across the border, the Irish Government are cutting vehicle excise duty by up to 20% for petrol and diesel. This Government are very keen and very quick to raise national insurance contributions and to cut universal credit. Will they be quick to cut vehicle excise duty to save people from the soaring costs that are crippling home budgets?

Conor Burns: On 3 February this year the Government announced that the Northern Ireland Executive will receive an additional £250 million to help them to support households with the cost of living. He mentions tax changes, but it would be imprudent of me as a junior Minister to comment ahead of the Chancellor’s making statements to the House.

James Sunderland: It was a real pity that we could not land the return of the world rally championship to Belfast in 2022. Can the Minister please confirm that we will pull out all the stops for 2023?

Conor Burns: I can. We did extensive work with the Department for the Economy and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was heavily involved in lobbying on that. We think it would be a great thing to bring to Northern Ireland and we are determined to build on the work we have already done to see whether that is possible next year.

Hilary Benn: Last week, I was in Northern Ireland with members of the UK Trade and Business Commission, where we heard from a major supermarket about the impact that the protocol could have in future if the grace periods no longer exist. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s answer to  the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) earlier, when he suggested an SPS agreement as a way forward. Can we be clear that the Government are seeking an SPS agreement with the EU that differentiates the goods that are at risk of going into the EU, and those that are not?

Conor Burns: I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I hold in high regard, that I was delighted that he was in Northern Ireland to hear first-hand some of the challenges Northern Ireland is facing. What we are seeking, as the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have all made very clear, is to take the protocol back in its application to how it was intended. It says in the protocol that,
“the application of this Protocol should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in…Northern Ireland”.
It also refers to,
“the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom’s internal market”.
The disruption that the implementation of the protocol is having in Northern Ireland is not sustainable. That is why the Government are committed to finding a negotiated solution.

Tonia Antoniazzi: On inward investment, the realisation of the redevelopment of Casement Park, a third sporting stadium in Belfast, would give Northern Ireland the opportunity to host sporting events on an international stage and bring communities together. What input or influence, if any, have the Secretary of State and his Minister on that? Could the £1.2 billion that the Northern Ireland Executive have returned to the Treasury since 2016 be used to realise such projects for Northern Ireland?

Conor Burns: I welcome the comments from the Labour Front Bench. We look at a whole range of opportunities for investment in Northern Ireland, to give it the opportunity to attract inward investment and to host international events. That will be a core part of what we are able to do through levelling up, and it is a key thing that the Secretary of State and I have been driving through our city and growth deals to help Northern Ireland and communities in Northern Ireland to attract investment that creates jobs and prosperity, which is the best way to underpin peace.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and  Petitions of Concern) Act 2022

Rob Butler: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 on political stability in Northern Ireland.

Brandon Lewis: The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 was specifically designed to improve the sustainability of the Northern Ireland institutions. The benefits include allowing more time and space for the formation of an Executive following an election or the resignation of the First or Deputy First Minister.

Rob Butler: I was pleased to serve on the Bill Committee for that legislation, and it is now clear that it was timely, given the recent resignations of Northern Ireland’s First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he is emphasising to Northern Ireland’s political parties that they all need to play their part and work together to achieve stable devolved Government?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is absolutely right. I continue to speak to a range of stakeholders, including the party leaders in Northern Ireland, about the importance of having a strong, functioning Northern Ireland Executive. A couple of them are in the Chamber now, and I have expressed to them my desire to have a First Minister and Deputy First Minister nominated now and after the May elections.

Stephen Farry: The Government have been clear that they want to legislate for the language and culture package of New Decade, New Approach before the Assembly rises for the elections, which is only two weeks away. Is that pledge going to happen in the next two weeks?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we deliver on our promise, as is the Prime Minister, as we set out last summer, and indeed that we deliver on all our commitments in the New Decade, New Approach deal, which brought Stormont back.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Pauline Latham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 March.

Boris Johnson: Never before has this House listened to an address such as the one given yesterday by President Zelensky. I want to tell the House that, working with our friends and allies across the free world, we will be doing even more in the coming days to protect the people of Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will set out more details for the House later.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Pauline Latham: My son Ben died of an aortic dissection at age 44, leaving a wife and two young children. It is a condition that kills 2,000 every year needlessly—more than those who die on the roads—yet most people do not know anything about it until it devastates their family, as it did mine. So many of these cases are preventable by identifying those at risk and through early and accurate diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister commend the work of the Aortic Dissection Charitable  Trust in working with all aspects of the patient pathway for this condition? In particular, will he commit to public funding for research into the diagnosis of aortic dissection and into genetic screening for it?

Boris Johnson: May I first say to my hon. Friend how very sorry I am, as I am sure the whole House is, for the loss of her son Ben? She is a passionate advocate for this work, and I also thank the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust. She is completely right that accurate and fast diagnosis and treatment is crucial, which is why I am pleased that the National Institute for Health Research is looking to do further work in this area, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will meet her at his earliest convenience.

Keir Starmer: The typical energy bill is going up by £700 next month, and that is because of pressures before Russia invaded Ukraine. What is the Chancellor’s solution? A forced £200 loan for every household, to be paid back in mandatory instalments over five years. The big gamble behind that policy was that energy costs would drop quickly after a short spike. That bet now looks certain to fail. When will the Prime Minister force the Chancellor into a U-turn?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out plans to help families with energy costs and unprecedented measures to abate council tax by £150, in addition to all the other schemes that we are putting forward. Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to meet the long-term impacts of the spike in energy prices, which is why I will be setting out an energy independence plan for this country in the course of the next few days, to ensure that we undo some of the damage of previous decisions—not least the Labour Government’s decision not to invest in nuclear—and so that we prepare our people for the long term, with a sustainable, cost-efficient energy supply.

Keir Starmer: I do not think the Prime Minister understands the mess he is in. Working families are facing a £700 spike in April. They will not even receive their £200 loan from the Chancellor until October. The wholesale price of oil and gas is now ballooning, so by October when the loan finally comes in, household bills are set to shoot up by another £1,000. It is a total mess, so I ask again: when is the Prime Minister going to force the Chancellor to U-turn?

Boris Johnson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for the Chancellor to U-turn on the support we are giving families and households, I think that he is absolutely out of his mind. We are going to continue to give people support throughout this difficult period, as we did throughout the coronavirus epidemic, with unprecedented levels of support. We have a £200 discount on bills, a £150 non-repayable reduction in council tax, and £144 million extra to help councils support vulnerable families with their energy bills. Altogether, there is a £20 billion package of financial help that we are giving the British people, and we will continue to do more. A U-turn is the last thing we want.

Keir Starmer: We will see how long that position lasts. Let me try to help the Prime Minister by coming at this from a different angle. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, North sea oil and gas companies were making bumper profits. BP made £9.5 billion, Shell made £14 billion—in their own words,
“more cash than we know what to do with.”
Since then, the international price of oil and gas has skyrocketed, and so will their profits. When will the Prime Minister admit he has got this badly wrong, put a windfall tax on those super-profits, and use the money to cut household energy bills?

Boris Johnson: The net result of that would simply be to see the oil companies put their prices up yet higher and make it more difficult for them to do what we need them to do—which, by the way, I think they are doing very responsibly at the moment—which is divesting from dependence on Russian oil and gas. That is the way forward for this country: to take a sober, responsible approach to end our dependence on hydrocarbons altogether, particularly Russian hydrocarbons. We are taking steps to rectify some of the mistakes made by the Labour Government and have a long-term, sustainable, independent energy supply policy. That is what this country needs.

Keir Starmer: Protecting energy profits, not working people—doesn’t that say it all? Britain cannot afford another crisis like this. We need to improve our long-term energy security. That starts with supporting new nuclear and renewables, but the Conservatives have effectively banned new onshore wind. As a direct result of this short-sighted approach, we are using more gas every year than we import from Russia. That is ludicrous, so will the Prime Minister relax planning laws, end the block on onshore wind, and stop supporting policies that make us so dependent on foreign gas?

Boris Johnson: It is thanks to the policies that this Government have pursued that we are dependent on Russian gas for only 3% of our gas needs, unlike virtually every other European country. It is thanks to the massive investment we have made in renewables that we are—as I have said many times in this House—the Saudi Arabia of wind power, producing more offshore wind than virtually any other country in the world. By the way, this may be news to some of his party, but I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman just committed to supporting more nuclear power. Great news! There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over a hundred others. Those were the people who cancelled our nuclear efforts during the time they were in power—they did completely the wrong thing. I am delighted to now welcome them into the fold.

Keir Starmer: Come off it! Labour is pro-nuclear. This Prime Minister cannot get a single brick laid of a new nuclear plant. Energy security is not just about supply; it is also about reducing demand. Our housing stock is the least efficient in Europe. That is why Labour set out a plan to upgrade the 19 million British homes that desperately need it within a decade, saving families £400 on their energy bills and cutting UK gas imports by 15%, whereas all the Government have is a failed policy. Taking all their announcements together, it will take 75 years to deliver the upgrades that we need. That is a lifetime, when we need urgent action. When is the Prime Minister going to get on with it?

Boris Johnson: I just remind the House that under the Labour Government, our nuclear output fell from about 25% to 10% of our energy needs, and as I recall, that was because of the decisions they took. We are now going to rectify that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the cost of energy bills, and we are helping households with the cost of energy bills to the tune of £9.1 billion. Why can this Government afford to do that? Why can we afford to put huge quantities of taxpayers’ money into supporting households with their energy costs? I will tell you why, Mr Speaker: it is because we have the fastest growth in the G7. Do not forget that if we had listened to Captain Hindsight, we would have stayed in lockdown and never achieved it.

Keir Starmer: Twelve years in power and that is the best the Prime Minister can do. The Ukrainian people are fighting for democracy. We must stand with them, and that means taking the toughest possible measures against Putin. Let us be honest that there will be costs here at home. We can withstand those costs, and we must, by using a windfall tax to keep bills down for working people and by starting a new era of energy policy, never again at the mercy of a dictator, by supporting new nuclear after years of neglect, sprinting on renewables, including onshore wind, and having an urgent national mission to upgrade homes, ending years of dither and delay. Why is the Prime Minister offering the same failed energy policy that cast us into the security crisis and allowed bills to rocket? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to hear the answer. Standing up will not catch my eye; in fact, it has the opposite effect on me.

Boris Johnson: What we are junking is the failed energy policies that left us without enough nuclear power, and what we will do is go forward with policies that allow this country to be independent in our energy supply, maximising renewables, making sure that we use transitional hydrocarbons and going for nuclear as well. As I say, I am overjoyed that Labour now seems to occupy that position. What we will also do, and here the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been supportive, is ensure that as a House of Commons we work together to maintain our opposition to Vladimir Putin’s vile war in Ukraine. There, together with the toughest possible economic sanctions and by maintaining our military support for the people of Ukraine, I have no doubt that although there will be dark days ahead and difficult times, we will come through it stronger. I have no doubt that Vladimir Putin will fail and we will succeed in restoring a sovereign and independent Ukraine.

David Johnston: For more than two decades, Thames Water has been trying to build a reservoir in my constituency that would be more than 30 metres high and would cover the equivalent of more than 2,500 football pitches. This has been a shadow over the local community, which does not think that Thames Water has proven the need for this proposal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a company seeks to do something like this, it has to show why it is needed, why it is better than the alternatives and what the environmental impact will be? The company cannot behave as though it is inevitable, whether the local community want it or not.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. He is a fantastic champion for his constituents in Wantage. As I understand it, the decision on the Abingdon reservoir has not actually been made, but we would expect Thames Water to consult further on the proposal. I know that it will have heard the points that he has rightly made.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to SNP leader Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: We are now 14 days into Putin’s war. In that time, I have genuinely tried to work constructively with the UK Government and I will continue to seek to do that. Nobody should support the Government, however, when it comes to their response to the refugee crisis—760 visa approvals in two weeks is disgraceful.
In that time, Poland has taken over 1.2 million refugees, Hungary has taken over 190,000 refugees, Germany has taken over 50,000 refugees, Italy has taken over 7,000 refugees and Ireland—a country of just over 5 million people—has given sanctuary to three times as many refugees as the United Kingdom. Those numbers do not lie; they tell a devastating truth. Does the Prime Minister find it acceptable that his Home Secretary has overseen one of the slowest, most bureaucratic and incompetent refugee responses in the whole of Europe?

Boris Johnson: I think everybody sympathises with the plight of refugees. The Government want to do everything we can to welcome them and that is indeed what we are doing. The numbers are almost 1,000 as I speak to the right hon. Gentleman today, and they will rise very sharply. They are uncapped and we expect those numbers to rise to in the region of hundreds of thousands.
As Vladimir Putin doubles down in his attacks, we will go further and there will be routes by which the whole country can offer a welcome to vulnerable people fleeing from Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be setting out that route in the course of the next few days. This Government have a proud, proud record. We have done more to resettle vulnerable people than any other European country since 2015.

Ian Blackford: I do not think the Prime Minister understands the scale of the challenge or the urgency. These are people fleeing war crimes, torn apart from their families as their homes are shelled, and the Home Secretary is blocking them with endless paperwork. That is not just incompetence; this is ideology. In the face of the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since the second world war, the UK Government will not set aside the hostile environment. [Interruption.] By the way, we are seeing the hostile environment this afternoon—Conservative Members might quieten down a bit.
We have seen that too many times from a Tory Home Office: the Windrush scandal, the “Go home” vans, and the inhumane Nationality and Borders Bill. The UK Home Office is raising barriers and bureaucracy when we should be offering care and compassion. I say to the Prime Minister that he should not let the history of failure repeat itself. Scotland stands ready to offer sanctuary and refuge, so will he join the rest of the European continent and waive the visa restrictions for refugees fleeing war in Ukraine?

Boris Johnson: This country has an unparalleled record—[Interruption.] Just since—[Interruption.] Since I have been Prime Minister, look at the numbers we have taken from Afghanistan and Hong Kong. The right hon. Gentleman lectures the Home Secretary, but this is a Government unlike any other: the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are directly descended from refugees. We understand how much refugees have to give to this country and we understand how much this country has to gain from welcoming refugees. We will be generous and we are being generous.
What we are doing is making sure that, in those neighbouring countries, the UK is out in front giving humanitarian assistance and we are in every capital. [Interruption.] SNP Members laugh, they mock, they scoff, but this country is leading in every respect. We are also the single biggest donor of humanitarian aid to the Ukraine warzone—the single biggest donor—and the right hon. Gentleman should be proud of that.

Julian Smith: I commend the Prime Minister’s response to the Ukrainian crisis, but people across the country are genuinely concerned by our response on refugees—by the bureaucracy and the tone of our response. He has shown with vaccines that Government change comes from the very top. I urge him to look again at resetting our policy and taking control of a more humane approach to those women and men fleeing from Ukraine.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much, and I thank him for all the work that he does in this area, but I hope he will have heard what I just said in my answer to the leader of the SNP, which is that this Government are I think unlike any other in our understanding of what refugees can give and the benefits to this country. We have done more than any other to resettle vulnerable people since 2015. There is a huge opportunity now for us to do even more. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up will be setting out a route by which the British people—not just the family reunion route, which can run into the hundreds of thousands, but a route by which everybody in this country—can offer a home to people fleeing Ukraine. My right hon. Friend will be setting that out in the course of the next few days.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Prime Minister will be acutely aware of the pressures facing households across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, with the rapid increase in the cost of heating homes and running a motor vehicle. Heating a home has more than doubled for many households in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing forward a package of measures designed to help households, including a cut in VAT on home heating fuel and reducing or cutting excise duty on fuel for motorists, and will he ensure that those measures apply to Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland protocol once again presents a problem in this Government taking control over the affairs of all of the United Kingdom? Will the decisions that the Treasury takes apply to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: We will make sure that we do everything to support the people of the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and we  have already extended a further £250 million to help the people of Northern Ireland with the costs of living, particularly heating. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, excise on fuel has been frozen for the last 12 years. We will ensure that the people of Northern Ireland continue to be protected, along with everybody in the UK, from the cost of living crisis, but the House should be in no doubt that the pressures on energy will continue. We need a pan-UK solution, and that is what we are going to be setting out.

John Stevenson: The world has changed. Energy security is vital, but so too is food security. Our food and drink manufacturers and those in the food supply chain proved their worth during the pandemic. Given the importance to our country of this sector and the need to ensure its competitiveness, its resilience and a high degree of self-sufficiency, will the Prime Minister now take the opportunity to review many of the proposed regulatory burdens such as on HFSS—high in fat, salt and sugar—products and the promotional and marketing restrictions that could adversely affect this important sector at this critical time?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that food security is a crucial issue. It is affected of course by the cost of energy, and the energy inputs into agriculture are certainly something that we need to address. There is also a separate issue to do with childhood obesity. The House passed measures already in the autumn—the ones to which he refers—and we are giving the industry more time to adjust to the impact of those measures.

Grahame Morris: In addition to the increase in fuel prices, our constituents are reporting to us that the energy companies are doubling standing charges. In France, energy supply company EDF has had energy price rises to domestic customers capped at 4%, but this Government’s price cap allows EDF to increase prices to UK customers by 54%. My question is: why?

Boris Johnson: We have an overall cap, and obviously EDF is incorporated differently in the UK from its incorporation in France. We will do everything in our power to abate the costs of energy across the country, as we already are, but what is needed is a short-term, medium-term and long-term energy strategy so that we have sustainable supplies.

Richard Holden: Soon after I was elected, I found out that, at Shotley Bridge, an eight-bed community hospital in my constituency had been replaced with a zero-bed unit—something some Labour councillors had known about, but said nothing about during the election campaign. After campaigning hard with Ministers and the Secretary of State, and working with my local NHS trust, a new 16-bed unit is now in the final stages of planning, and has been confirmed as part of this Government’s hospital building programme. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this new community hospital is now full steam ahead, and will he commit to coming to Consett to kick off the building works if the plan goes ahead by the end of next year?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I am delighted that there will be a new hospital at Shotley Bridge, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has done to lobby for that. It proves that, in spite of the pandemic and in spite of war in Ukraine, this Government are getting on with the job.

Peter Dowd: I have just been to a very harrowing meeting with families who have members of their families in care homes and hospitals who have suffered an unjustifiable denial of access to those loved ones and have been massively restricted. It continues, despite the post-covid environment. Is the Prime Minister prepared to introduce legislation to make access to loved ones in care homes and hospitals a legal right, and not at the discretion of the care home or hospital concerned?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I think everybody understands the anguish of people who have not been able to see their loved ones during the pandemic, and as he knows, we have relaxed the restrictions in care homes. I would be happy to offer a meeting between him and the relevant Health Minister to discuss his further concerns.

John Penrose: The Government have already stopped issuing golden visas, so that those cannot be exploited by oligarchs and crime lords. However, some could already be here, living in luxury London penthouse flats that they bought with dirty cash. Will the Prime Minister pledge that anybody who is put on the sanctions list in the coming days and is already in the UK on a golden visa will have it ripped up, so that they can be thrown out?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank the House for what we have done to accelerate the economic crime measures. We will be able to whip aside the veil of anonymity. Ownership of the luxurious dwellings to which my hon. Friend refers will be exposed and, yes, we will be able to take away the ability to remain in this country.

Barbara Keeley: As energy costs spiral, I want to raise the issue of people who use extra electricity to charge their electric wheelchairs, or to run ventilators or a stairlift. It is not right that people with a disability or serious medical condition should face unmanageable debt, or go without food, to pay the costs of electricity on which they absolutely rely. They need a real cut to their bills right now. Why is the Prime Minister not looking at drawing on the profits of the North sea oil and gas companies to help the most vulnerable families with those costs?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much and she raises an important issue. Clearly, the spike in energy prices is going to fall most heavily on vulnerable people such as the ones she mentioned, and we will certainly be looking at ways to abate their costs.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Paul Holmes.

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Paul Holmes: I do not know what I have done to deserve that.
Residents in the village of Hamble in my constituency are currently facing the prospect of a quarry being given planning permission, with 144 lorries per day in that congested area and one-road access. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss how we can tighten the regulations on where quarries can be built, to take into account the health implication, our environment, and our local communities?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. He is a great champion for Eastleigh. The planning framework is robust and should ensure that quarries do not have an adverse impact on the environment or on health. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss his concerns further.

Abena Oppong-Asare: In recent weeks we have seen how serious and dangerous Russia’s covert influence in Britain can be. We have seen that Putin actively seeks to influence the culture, media, and politics of democratic nations. Our national security is of the greatest importance, and Britain cannot become home to those who prop up Putin and his war. With that in mind, has the Prime Minister ever overruled Security Service advice when appointing a peer to the other place?

Boris Johnson: No, and actually the Kremlin has singled out the UK for being in the lead on global sanctions—[Interruption.] Yes it has, and in leading the world in defiance of the odious war that Putin is leading in Ukraine.

Greg Clark: Yesterday, President Zelensky drew on the words of Churchill in this Chamber. As we salute the courage of the people of Ukraine, it reminds us that we can meet in freedom today only because of the courage of a generation of men and women who, in the second world war, defended us from annihilation. Among them is my friend Flight Lieutenant Colin Bell DFC, who flew his de Havilland Mosquito in 50 missions over Nazi Germany. Colin Bell is with us today. On Saturday, he celebrated his 101st birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing Colin a very happy birthday and thank him for what he did to allow us to be here today?

Boris Johnson: The whole House will want to join me in thanking Colin Bell and wishing him a very happy 101st birthday.

Brendan O'Hara: People across these islands have displayed remarkable generosity, including in Argyll and Bute, where Oban Helps Ukraine has been overwhelmed by donations of money, clothes and offers of shelter. Sadly, the Government’s reluctance to allow fleeing women and children to come here lags far behind the desire of the people here to provide them with a roof and a bed. Does not the Prime Minister fear that, when this war is concluded, and despite whatever else they may have done, his Government will stand accused of lacking the one thing that the Ukrainian people needed most: basic humanity?

Boris Johnson: I really do not think that that question reflects the views of people around the world. Nor does it reflect reality because this Government have done more than any other European country to support  people by way of direct bilateral humanitarian aid, and we have two very generous schemes for allowing people to come to this country. This is a Government who believe in welcoming people fleeing from zones of conflict.

Brendan O'Hara: indicated dissent.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member shakes his head. Look at our record. Look at what we have done just in the last two years. He should be proud of what we have done.

Paul Maynard: We were pleased to welcome both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to Blackpool the day after the launch of the levelling up White Paper. Will he meet me to discuss how we can ensure that Blackpool is not just a testbed for innovation in many areas of levelling up but a showcase for the impact that it can have on the community that I represent?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his wonderful work in Blackpool for the communities he represents. It was fantastic to be with him and to see the extension and upgrading of the tram network in Blackpool, which will help to drive the economy and help to bring in high-wage, high-skilled jobs, in the way we hope to do across the whole of the UK as we get on with levelling up.

Edward Davey: In the months before world war two, the UK took in more than 60,000 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. Over half a century ago, we took in more than 27,000 Ugandans expelled by Idi Amin. Since then, we have taken Tamils escaping civil war, Bosnians escaping genocide and Syrians escaping Assad. But this week, the Home Office turned away hundreds of Ukrainian refugees escaping Putin’s bombs because they did not have the right paperwork. Can the Prime Minister not see that that flies in the face of our country’s proud tradition of providing sanctuary? Since the Home Office is clearly not up to the task, will he send in armed forces personnel to speed up the process so that Ukrainian refugees can come here quickly and safely?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. The whole House wants to do as much as we can as fast as possible, but what he says about the UK is, I am afraid, completely wrong, because we have visa centres open in Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, Rzeszów in Poland, Chi inău in Moldova, Bucharest and elsewhere. We have already got 1,000 people in under the existing scheme. That number will climb very sharply. Look at what we have done already—15,000 from Afghanistan, 104,000 applications from Hong Kong Chinese, and I think there were about 25,000 from Syria. No one has been turned away. That is simply—[Interruption.] We want to be as generous—[Interruption.] It is important to have checks. Let me make this point to the House because I think people need to understand.
There are some people who would like to dispense with checks altogether and simply to wave people through—[Interruption.] I hear the voices on the Opposition Benches, and I think that that is irresponsible and is not the approach that we should be taking. The Schengen countries have a different arrangement. We must be in no doubt, as I said in answer to a previous question, that the Kremlin has singled out this country for the approach that we are taking, and we know how unscrupulous Vladimir Putin can be in his methods. It would not be right to expose this country to unnecessary security risk and we will not do it. We are going to be as generous as we can possibly be, but we must have checks.

Shaun Bailey: My community in Tipton came together on Sunday to commemorate the 100 years since the devastating explosion at the Dudley Port munitions factory and the 19 girls who were recklessly murdered by the owner of that factory. In the Black Country, it is vital that we acknowledge both the pride and the pain of our industrial heritage. May I ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, to reaffirm his commitment today to the Black Country to ensure that we honour the legacy of those girls from that factory in Dudley Port 100 years ago? The one way that he can do that for my community in Tipton is to come to Tipton to see that beating heart of the Black Country, and we will welcome him with open arms.

Boris Johnson: Long ago, when I was a reporter, Tipton was on my beat—many years ago—and wild horses could not keep me away from Tipton. I’ll be back.

Ronnie Cowan: I have a constituent whose elderly parents are seeking refuge in the United Kingdom from Ukraine. Her parents are both in their 80s. They have made it to Hungary. They went to the visa application centre, as instructed by the Home Office hotline, and they were told, “Come back on 22 March.” Then, and only then, will their biometrics be processed. That is the harsh reality—no spin, no subterfuge. Prime Minister, when will refugees from Ukraine be welcomed into the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he would be kind enough, I would be grateful if he passed me the details of the case that he mentioned and I would be happy to give it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We are moving heaven and earth, because we understand the value to this country of refugees. We also understand the imperative of helping people fleeing a war zone in terror. That is why the people of this country want to open their arms, and we are going to help them to do it with a new humanitarian route, in addition to the family reunion route that we have already set out. That family reunion route alone could bring hundreds of thousands of people here. I think the whole House understands that; we will do even more through the new humanitarian route.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is the end of Prime Minister’s questions. Please leave quietly.

Ukraine Update

Ben Wallace: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the situation in Ukraine and Her Majesty’s Government’s support to the Government in Kyiv.
The situation on the ground is grave. As we can recall, on 24 February, forces of the Russian army, unprovoked, crossed into Ukraine’s sovereign territory. Along three main axes, Russian armour has attempted to occupy Ukraine. Its plan was to reach and encircle Kyiv, encircle Ukrainian forces near the border and invade from the south to link up with its forces via Mariupol.
Russian high command committed 65% of its entire land forces, which are indisputably in possession of overwhelming firepower and armour. It is estimated that at the start of the invasion they had between 110 and 120 battalion tactical groups dedicated to the task, compared with approximately 65 in Ukraine. Their missile stocks gave them even greater strength to reach Ukraine at distance. However, what they did not and still do not possess is the moral component so often needed for victory.
After 14 days of the war, according to the Ukrainian general staff, at 6 March, Russian casualties were assessed to include 285 tanks, 985 armoured fighting vehicles, 109 artillery systems, 50 multiple launch rocket systems, 44 aircraft, 48 helicopters and 11,000 soldiers, who have lost their lives needlessly. There are numerous reports of surrenders and desertions by the ever-growingly disillusioned Russian army. To be clear, those are Ukrainian figures; I have to caution the House that we have not verified them by defence intelligence or other means.
I can announce to the House our assessment that, of the initial Russian objectives, only one has been successfully achieved. While Russian forces are in control of Kherson, Melitopol and Berdyansk in southern Ukraine, they currently encircle the cities of Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv and Mariupol but are not in control of them. In addition, their first day objective of targeting Ukrainian air defence has failed, preventing total air dominance. The Ukrainian armed forces have put up a strong defence while mobilising the whole population. President Putin’s arrogant assumption that he would be welcomed as a liberator has deservedly crumbled as fast as his troops’ morale.
For our part, the United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in supporting Ukraine. On 17 January, I announced to the House the Government’s intention to supply military aid to the Ukrainian armed forces. The aid took the form of body armour, helmets, boots, ear defenders, ration packs, rangefinders and communication equipment, and for the first time it also included weapons systems. The initial supply was to be 2,000 new light anti-tank weapons, small arms and ammunition.
In response to further acts of aggression by Russia, we have now increased that supply. I can update the House that, as of today, we have delivered 3,615 NLAWs and continue to deliver more. We will shortly be starting the delivery of a small consignment of anti-tank javelin missiles as well. I want to assure the House that everything we do is bound by the decision to supply defensive systems and is calibrated not to escalate to a strategic level.
Britain was the first European country to supply lethal aid. I was pleased that not long after a military aid donor conference I held on 25 February, many more countries decided to do the same. From right across Europe, the donations came. In particular, I want to highlight the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Belgium and Slovenia for their leadership, and we should not ignore the significance of the German Government joining us, in a change of stance, and donating such aid.
Donations are not enough; the delivery of aid to the frontline is just as important. Here, again, Britain is leading, because alongside Canada, the United States and Sweden, we have invested in building Ukrainian military capacity since 2015, and we find ourselves able to co-ordinate the delivery alongside our partners.
As the conflict intensifies, the Russians are changing their tactics, so the Ukrainians need to, too. We can all see the horrific devastation inflicted on civilian areas by Russian artillery and airstrikes, which have been indiscriminate and murderous. It is therefore vital that Ukraine maintains its ability to fly and to suppress Russian air attack. To date, the international community has donated more than 900 man-portable air defence missiles and thousands of anti-tank guided weapons of varying types, as well as various small arms. However, the capability needs strengthening, so in response to Ukrainian requests the Government have taken the decision to explore the donation of Starstreak high-velocity, man-portable anti-aircraft missiles. We believe that this system will remain within the definition of defensive weapons, but will allow the Ukrainian forces to better defend their skies. We shall also be increasing supplies of rations, medical equipment, and other non-lethal military aid.
As with any war, the civilian population is suffering horrendous hardships. According to the Ukrainian Minister of Education, 211 schools have been damaged or destroyed, and media footage shows Russian strikes hitting kindergartens. The Chernihiv regional administration reported that the Russian air force was employing FAB-500 unguided bombs against targets in the city, and according to Human Rights Watch, civilians in Mariupol have now been without water and power for almost a week. President Zelensky talked of children dying of thirst. Today the estimated number of Ukrainian civilians killed or injured stands at more than 1,000, but the true figure is expected to be much higher, and I am afraid that worse is likely to come. It is for that reason that the UK will increase its funding for Ukraine to £220 million, which includes £120 million of humanitarian aid. That will make the United Kingdom the single biggest bilateral humanitarian donor to Ukraine. We are also supporting humanitarian work with the Polish and Romanian Governments on the borders.
As I said in my last statement, we still believe that it is worth trying to build diplomatic pressure on Russia. This week, my good friend the Prime Minister met the Prime Ministers of Canada, the Netherlands and Poland. He also spoke to the leaders of France, Germany and the United States, and the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The Foreign Secretary is in Washington at the G7, and also attended the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting earlier this month. I myself met the Ukrainian Ambassador just this morning. President Putin should be and can be  in no doubt that the international community is united against his actions. It remains strong, and will not back down.
As well as giving direct military support to Ukraine, we continue to bolster our contribution towards NATO’s collective security. NATO Defence Ministers will gather next week in Brussels to discuss the next steps. The UK is doing its bit in giving military support and reassurance to its allies. We are currently supplying significant air power to NATO, including increased air patrols, with both Typhoons and F-35s for NATO air policing. We have also deployed four additional Typhoons to Cyprus to patrol NATO’s eastern border, and have sent an additional 800 troops to Estonia. Over the last week, Apache and Chinook helicopters were involved in exercises in Estonia. Meanwhile, HMS Diamond has sailed to the eastern Mediterranean, HMS Northumberland is taking part in a northern deployment, and HMS Grimsby is in the Norwegian sea supporting NATO mine countermeasures.
On Monday HMS Prince of Wales, RFA Tidesurge and HMS Defender joined HMS Albion and RFA Mounts Bay for Exercise Cold Response, a multinational exercise off the coast of Norway, and HMS Richmond will be exercising with our joint expeditionary force. We have put over 1,000 more British troops on readiness to support humanitarian responses in the bordering countries. Britain’s contribution to NATO is significant and enduring. It is important at this time that, in order to maximise our reassurance and resilience effect, we co-ordinate through NATO and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
Few of us will not have been moved by President Zelensky’s speech yesterday. His people are fighting for their very survival. His country is united against this aggression, and it is indeed his country’s darkest hour. Yesterday I saw footage of a Russian armoured train, bristling with guns, heading towards Mariupol. A single brave Ukrainian woman ran to the train and shouted “Slava Ukraini”—unmoved, unintimidated by the guns. That woman’s bravery should inspire us all.
I know that many of our constituents, and our colleagues, are fearful of what will happen next. President Putin and the Kremlin continue to threaten countries that offer help to Ukraine. Their military campaign will, I am afraid, become more brutal and more indiscriminate, but it is my firm belief that our strength to stand up to such bullying comes from our alliances. As long as we stand united, both as a House and as the international community, the Kremlin’s threats cannot hurt us. We should take strength from the peoples right across Europe who are standing shoulder to shoulder to protect our values—our freedom, our tolerance, our democracy and our free press. That is our shield.

John Healey: I thank the Defence Secretary and his team for the way they have kept Members in all parts of the House updated and informed, and I thank him for his statement this afternoon. President Zelensky spoke for his country when he told us yesterday:
“We will not give up, and we will not lose.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 304.]
His address, like his leadership, was deeply moving and deeply inspiring. Ukrainians are showing massive bravery—military and civilians alike—and we must do all we can to support their resistance. The Government have Labour’s full backing for providing military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine to defend itself.
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement and the detail of the further weapons and equipment that Britain has been able to provide Ukraine to defend itself. I also welcome the role we are playing in co-ordinating help from other countries for Ukraine. Can I urge him to conclude the examination he is now giving to the provision of Starstreak missiles as quickly as possible? These are exactly the sort of ground-to-air missiles needed to defend against Russian air attacks. Can I ask him more broadly whether these supplies to Ukraine are coming solely from our UK stockpiles, or is the MOD also purchasing from other countries to respond to Ukrainian requests? Have other non-NATO, non-European countries with weaponry or well-trained air forces yet been involved?
It is clear that President Putin miscalculated the resolve of the Ukrainian military and the strength of his own Russian forces. He planned for a short campaign without the provision of logistics for protracted fighting and occupation. What is the MOD’s assessment of how far the Russians have now rectified this? I think the Secretary of State said 65%, but can he confirm what proportion of Russian forces that were on Ukraine’s borders and off her coast have now been deployed into Ukraine?
This is only still week two. Russia has such crushing firepower, and Putin has such utter ruthlessness, that we must expect more than one of his military objectives to be taken over the next few weeks. We must expect greater brutality, with still further civilian casualties. Our thoughts and prayers are with the residents of Kyiv and those other great Ukrainian cities as they face encirclement and bombardment from Russian forces.
Whatever the short-term gains Putin secures, we must make sure that he fails in the longer run through Ukrainian resistance, tougher sanctions, more humanitarian help, wider international isolation, justice for the war crimes being committed and, above all, lasting western unity. We must be ready to deal with the consequences of this invasion for many years to come. It is clear, however, that Putin has also miscalculated the international resolve to isolate Russia and the strength of western and NATO unity. Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and the Government again have our full support for reinforcing NATO nations on the alliance’s eastern border with Russia. The Labour leader and I fly out tonight to Tallinn to reassure Estonia of the united UK determination to defend its security and to thank our British forces deployed there from the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Welsh battlegroup.
It was Labour’s post-war Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who was the principal architect of NATO and in particular of its article 5 commitment to collective defence. Today is the anniversary of Bevin’s birth in 1881, so today let President Putin be in no doubt that our commitment to article 5 is absolute. Let him not mistake NATO’s restraint for any lack of resolve. NATO’s response force has been activated, as the Defence Secretary has said, in response to this aggression. We welcome the detail of the UK’s contribution to that, but what role could the UK-led joint expeditionary force play? Is it  not time for NATO to issue an initiating directive to the Supreme Allied Commander to plan future options as part of overhauling NATO, necessarily, for the decade ahead? Could the Defence Secretary also confirm what I think he said, which was that the 1,000 UK troops put on stand-by before the invasion are still in Britain and still on stand-by, and that we have received no requests for the humanitarian help that they were designed to respond to?
It is not the job of British forces to protect the failing Home Secretary or Border Force, especially at this critical time of conflict, but yesterday the Defence Secretary said that help for Ukrainians fleeing the war had “not been quick enough”. He also said that he was offering MOD assistance to the Home Office. Has this offer been accepted? Can he tell us what role military personnel will play, where, and for how long?
As we confront aggression abroad, we need to strengthen our defences at home. A national resilience strategy was promised a year ago. When will this be published? The integrated review, published a year ago, made the Prime Minister’s first focus the Indo-Pacific. It neglected the need to rebuild relations with essential European allies and the European Union, and it planned to cut the British Army still further. Will the Government now rethink such fundamental flaws in their integrated review?
Finally, if I may, Mr Speaker, we expect a big budget boost for Defence in the Chancellor’s spring statement in two weeks’ time. With Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Government must respond to new threats to UK and European security, just as Labour in government did after the twin towers attacks on 9/11. If the Government act, they will again have Labour’s full support.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am going to make mention of this important issue: Front Benchers have to be in line with the rules, and I have to enforce the rules. The rule says five minutes, but that was seven. If you want me to grant urgent questions and if you want me to support statements, you have to work with me to ensure that we do not take the time from other agendas. I do keep clock of the time, and I do not want to get into an argument about it—the Labour Front-Bench spokesman took a lot longer. This is an important matter and I want to keep it on the agenda, but you need to work with me. Or change the rules and make my life easier!

Ben Wallace: Maybe I should apologise, Mr Speaker. I did not give the Labour Front Benchers long enough to examine the statement; it was fairly short notice for them. I think we hear you on both sides of the House, and you would not like me to take too long either—[Interruption.] Certainly those on the Labour Back Benches would not like that.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked some important questions. I am grateful for Labour’s support for the position that the Government have taken on Ukraine. Our position mirrors that of the international community—not just NATO members but nations outside NATO such as Sweden and Finland. In answer to his question on the stockpile, we will currently take the supplies from our stockpile and we will backfill them from the manufacturer when and where we can. We already have some on order, so I can give him that assurance. I also ensure that we keep a basic level to ensure that we cover our own force protection  as required. We will not leave our soldiers at risk in somewhere such as Estonia, specifically. Nevertheless, we will ensure that we calibrate that correctly.
On the MOD’s assessment of the Russian forces, over 90% of those forces on the border have now been committed to Ukraine and inside Ukraine. We also see media reports about Belorussian forces maybe, or maybe not, being primed. This has had an interesting effect on Belorussian forces, with reports of desertions and senior officers refusing to join the fight. There is also something very telling about Russia’s desperation at the moment. We have seen significant amounts of effort to try to bring the Wagner Group into Ukraine. The Wagner Group is the wholly unacceptable mercenary company responsible for all sorts of atrocities in Africa and the middle east. The fact that Russia is now trying to encourage the Wagner Group to take part in Ukraine is a telling sign. It does not give us any comfort but, nevertheless, it is a sign.
I went to Copenhagen last week to meet my Swedish, Lithuanian and Danish counterparts as they set off to join our enhanced forward presence in Estonia. The Danish sent a company of armoured infantry, which was escorted across the sea by a Swedish and Danish ship with air cover from Sweden. That JEF deployment is a good example of how, in the neighbourhood of the Nordics, we come together either bilaterally or multilaterally to make sure we provide greater defence.
After our meeting in Rutland a few weeks ago, we determined to have a longer programme of joint planning to make sure we maximise our capabilities, exercises and activity. We will see more of the JEF, and I am happy to continue keeping the House informed.
I am grateful for the reminder of Bevin’s birthday. As a Conservative, I will be forgiven for not knowing that date, but I always welcome being educated. I have some Labour supporters in my family, but I am not sure they would know he was born in 1881 either. Nevertheless, the commitment to article 5 is important. Yesterday I met my counterpart from North Macedonia, the newest member of NATO. Importantly, Britain is in NATO not for what we can get out of it but because we fundamentally believe in defending each other. Whether we are big or small, we all stand for the same values.
I promised to keep Members informed on Ukraine, no matter what happens. My team is available, as is the Chief of Defence Intelligence. I will happily do dial-ins and as many briefings as possible at both Privy Council and non-Privy Council level.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Office, and the offer has been accepted in principle. There is a meeting straight after this statement between Defence Ministers, Home Office Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers to make sure we co-ordinate our assistance in speeding up the visa process, which is incredibly important.
It is important not to mischaracterise the IR. The right hon. Gentleman has said this before, but the actual quote from the IR is that Russia is
“the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”
Strengthening Europe is critical to preserving our security and prosperity in the north Atlantic. The IR did not miss Russia. In fact, it squarely identified Russia as our main adversary. It would be wrong to characterise it as everyone going off to the Pacific. Looking at the balance  of my investments as Defence Secretary, including in basing and expeditionary forces such as JEF, they are in Europe, and in northern Europe, too. That is incredibly important.
The Cabinet Office is in charge of the national resilience strategy, and I will pass on the details to the relevant Minister. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I look forward to reading that strategy.

Bill Cash: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Government and the Prime Minister on the manner in which they have conducted themselves in relation to this dreadful invasion of Ukraine.
I have just come back from a conference in Paris, where I had the honour of leading the European Scrutiny Committee’s delegation. All the countries of Europe appreciate what the United Kingdom is doing.
My son is currently doing humanitarian work in Poland and Hungary, and I trust that others will be able to do the same. This is important not only to our constituents but to fairness and justice in the world. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for everything he has done.

Ben Wallace: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. It is incredibly important that we recognise that this is not just a military response. The scale of the humanitarian crisis, which will only grow as Russia seeks to punish the innocent for having the temerity to stand up to it, means we all have to lean in as an international community. We have all received emails from constituents who want to help, and I urge colleagues to channel them in the right direction. Some of us are old enough to remember the Bosnia war, and I know from soldiers who were on the ground that lots of well-meaning people drove out there and put at risk both themselves and the forces whose job it was to protect them. We need to make sure the work is properly co-ordinated, and I will get details to hon. and right hon. Members so that they can point their constituents in the right direction.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Stewart Malcolm McDonald.

Stewart McDonald: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Like the shadow Secretary of State and the Secretary of State, I put on record how grateful we are to President Zelensky for taking the time to talk to the House yesterday. It is a moment that I am sure will stay with us all for a long time.
The statement says that the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence will explore the donation of new anti-air missiles. We urge them to conclude that as swiftly as possible and to ensure the missiles get to Ukraine as swiftly as possible. As the conflict continues, and it is now going into its third week, Ukraine’s needs will adapt and the support we give has to adapt, too. We have previously talked to the Minister for the Armed Forces about supplying satellite phones, which Ukraine identified as an urgent need two weeks ago.
As I understand it, the United States has declined to be involved in supplying jets from Poland, but the Department of Defence has said it will keep that under  review. Is the Secretary of State part of that discussion? Given the new security and defence arrangements that were announced six or seven weeks ago involving Poland and Ukraine, how might we expect that to develop in the coming days?
Time is not on Ukraine’s side, and I appreciate the immense sensitivities around this. Like many others, I welcome the additional military aid, non-lethal aid, and humanitarian support. Of course, I also welcome all the efforts of our constituents up and down the land in supporting Ukrainians in their time of need.
What sort of changes can we expect to see in the forthcoming NATO strategic concept? For example, will the air policing mission be reprofiled as an air defence mission? Can the Secretary of State talk a bit more about what the House can expect?
We have tried to support the Government on Ukraine and in many other areas, and the Government have made that easy in many ways, but on refugees we stand out in Europe for all the wrong reasons. Although the Secretary of State’s Department is not responsible for refugees, I plead with him to fix it, and to fix it soon.

Ben Wallace: Like the hon. Gentleman, we are determined to fix it. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will have a meeting this afternoon on exactly this. We should not forget that the overall offer is generous: 200.000 places via the family route and unlimited places via the humanitarian route. The key is to speed it up to make sure that, when people arrive at the border, they are home and safe with their family as soon as possible. The Ministry of Defence will do everything to support that.
I do not have access to the discussions on jets from Poland. I have said publicly that the position of the United Kingdom Government is that it is for the Polish Government to decide on the calibration of their aid to Ukraine but, as an ally and friend, Britain will stand by whatever decision they make. Poland is, of course, on the frontline, and I hope that any consequence is positive, but we never know with President Putin.
It is important to give Poland the reassurance and the space to make this decision but, fundamentally, the Ukrainians need to be able to take action against artillery at deep ranges, which can be done with unmanned aerial vehicles, and to protect their airspace, which can be done with the missile systems we are providing. The only lag with the missile systems is that, as they get more complicated, people need training.
How and where we deliver that training is obviously sensitive, but we have to make sure it is rolled out into Ukraine. These valuable pieces of equipment need to be positioned in the right places to make a difference. One reason why I wanted to come to the House as soon as possible, although we are going to do it in principle, is so that the House has the earliest warning possible.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about NATO’s strategic concept, and I will also be asking questions about what happens now. There are questions for NATO on both the short term and the long term. In the long term, after Ukraine, what are we going to do to contain Russia and to provide reassurance and resilience to our neighbours and fellow NATO members who will need it? At next week’s meeting, I will start the process of indicating to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe  that I would like to see him start planning for containment, if that is one of the options post Ukraine. I will ask what that looks like in the 21st century.

Neil Hudson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for all that his Department and our incredible armed forces are doing at this time to help the people of Ukraine. The humanitarian crisis is worsening hour by hour. Will he assure my constituents and people across the UK that the UK is doing everything it can, on a cross-government basis, to widen and accelerate the visa system, cut through the red tape and work practically and compassionately with our partners in Europe to offer sanctuary and aid to as many Ukrainian people as we can, as quickly as we can?

Ben Wallace: My hon. Friend will have heard my answer to my Scottish National party colleague the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and the Minister for the Armed Forces will be happy to brief my hon. Friend once those meetings have taken place to update him on the assistance the MOD can give.

Derek Twigg: I thank the Secretary of State for the regular and excellent updates and briefings we have and for the hard work he is putting in on Ukraine, within the constraints he has to work within. However, I do think it is a strategic mistake that when confronting a tyrant we tell him what we will not do. If Putin remains in power, we will have to confront him at some point militarily. We should be aware of that and get it out in the open. But my question is: what level of slaughter of Ukrainians are we willing to see before NATO and the west intervene militarily in Ukraine, such as by ensuring safe areas in western Ukraine?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. It is a difficult balance as to when we tell people. In effect, I have to come to this House to get policy permission from you before we take a different step on the weapons systems, and that is the right thing to do; we have to make sure that this is calibrated into the right process. It is important with Putin, especially as he would seek to discover things and potentially use them to escalate, that we are up front and transparent about what we are going to do, so that he cannot try to repackage it as a major strategic issue. This is not an easy line; on the one hand, I would be happy sometimes to do this, but the decision is about bringing the House with us and making sure that people understand. I do not think there will be a tactical difference on the ground because I have come to the House today to tell people in advance that this is happening. Russia now has a serious problem with the international community’s donations, which are at a large scale, whether we are talking about anti-tank or Stinger missiles. It has had to change its tactics as a result. It would be wrong for Putin to characterise this as anything other than our responding to its change in tactics, but we are making sure that he does not get impunity to bomb people from the air and kill innocent victims. On the other issue, associated with humanitarian corridors and no-fly zones, we have to be careful. We would have to enforce them and in thinking about enforcing them, we have to recognise the knock-on effects and whether we trigger a wider war in Europe.

Mark Pritchard: I thank the Defence Secretary and all the ministerial team for working so hard on this, and I thank all those in the main building and those in uniform throughout our armed forces for responding so well to the war in Ukraine. He mentions just over 3,600 new, light anti-tank weapons. They have been put to very good use, as he will know. Will he reassure the House that that supply will continue, and at pace? Secondly, he mentions consideration of surface-to-air missiles and the system Starstreak. How long will that decision-making process take?

Ben Wallace: First, the decisions have been made in principle that we will provide them, which is why I came to the House. We have to make sure that we provide people with the training and capability to deliver that. I thank my right hon. Friend for the effort he put in, working with the Speaker, to deliver the speech yesterday by President Zelensky. I cannot tell the two of you how important it was to hear from a man who is clearly leading his country from the front, but who is also under tremendous personal threat from Russia.

Layla Moran: First, I thank the Defence Secretary for the approach he takes, being the calm voice of competence that we want to hear in this crisis. He should not have to intervene in the Home Office, but I am glad that he is doing so and I thank him for stepping up where his colleagues are failing again. He will know that this is not just the right thing to do, but strategically the important thing to do, because Putin is counting on Europe not getting the refugee crisis right. That plays into his hands in the medium term and longer term. Does he agree with my concern that if we do not get a grip on the refugee crisis soon, across the whole of Europe, including in this country, we could well be playing into those fears?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. One of the most important things is recognising that President Putin and, as we saw, the President of Belarus, used migrant flows deliberately to divide and put pressure on our system. That is why when they did that in Belarus, with the Belarusians literally shoving people through fences a few months ago, we sent 100 Royal Engineers to assist the Poles to manage that issue. It is incredibly important that we all think about what happened. Many of us who were warning about what Russia was going to do warned a number of countries on this. Indeed, I said to the EU, “Where you can add value is to plan for mass refugees in a way that we have not seen since the war.” That is really important. That is where the EU is at its best, in co-ordinating the non-military responses. It has done well, but it is not shielded from the criticism as well. We all have to do this internationally and do it better. We have to do the visa bit faster. My colleagues are absolutely bringing to bear those assets from the MOD, but we should also remember that we act as a team; I am not intervening in the Home Office. Government is a team and we are working together as a team to deliver that.

Flick Drummond: Although Putin has committed almost all the forces he had pre-positioned, we know that he has more modern equipment still to deploy. Are we able to determine whether those additional forces are ready to deploy?

Ben Wallace: First, let me say that Putin has deployed some of his most modern equipment. He has “gone all-in” and played his full hand. Members will have seen only recently an SA-22 or a Pantsir anti-air medium-range missile system that has been defeated by the mud of Ukraine; it has a burst tyre and it is stuck in the mud. Putin has gone all-in and risked some of his most important equipment. He is using significant numbers of his missile stocks and he is taking a huge risk around the wider boundaries of Russia, which he is now leaving thinned out in terms of defence.

Kevin Brennan: There was a report from Reuters yesterday that dozens of former Paras have signed up for the Ukrainian foreign legion and that hundreds more are expected to do so. Will the Defence Secretary give the House absolute clarity on the UK Government’s position in relation to those volunteers?

Ben Wallace: The Government’s position is: if you are a serving member of the armed forces, you will be breaking the law. There were reports in the weekend newspaper about three members who had gone AWOL over the weekend. They will be breaking the law and they will be prosecuted when they return for going AWOL or deserting. For others, as the Government’s travel advice is “Do not go to Ukraine”, we strongly discourage them from joining these forces. My experience, having been Security Minister, is that where people went off to join the YPG and other organisations it did not end well. It is also the case, as a number of these people are now discovering, that the Ukrainians are very clear in saying, “You turn up, you are in it for the whole game. You are not in it for a selfie and six weeks. You are in it for real.” I think we have seen already some people at the border decide that that may not be the right option to follow.

Roger Gale: I understand that it would be possible, at very short notice, to reopen Manston airport in Kent to fly out humanitarian aid such as pharmaceuticals and to fly in refugees, who could then be processed at Manston barracks. That would require the co-operation and effort of the MOD and of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I am not asking for a guarantee now, but will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) to see what possibilities there might be there?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. At the moment, we have the capacity we need, and the landing slots and landing fields we need to deliver whatever we need to do. If, however, there is greater pressure, I would be delighted to talk to both him and the Levelling Up Secretary to see whether we can take advantage of my right hon. Friend’s kind offer.

Debbie Abrahams: I thank the Secretary of State for all he is doing and the compassionate way he is doing it.
My question relates to a constituent, and although the issue is not necessarily the Secretary of State’s departmental responsibility, I would be grateful if he could follow it up. Four weeks ago, my constituent, who lives in the Donbas, drove across the country and managed to get through to Poland. He has been waiting for a visa  for his wife and their infant daughter for the past four weeks and has heard nothing from the Home Office. He is running out of money and wants to get home with his family. Will the Secretary of State please urge the Home Office to do its job?

Ben Wallace: If the hon. Lady gives the details to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), I will be happy to make that representation to the Home Office.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House again to keep us informed. He was right when he said that the whole House was moved by the President of Ukraine’s address yesterday. The President of Ukraine has spoken again today and is desperate for aircraft to protect women and children from being bombed and killed by Russians. Poland has acted, but there is a hold-up because of the response from the United States. The Secretary of State touched on this earlier, but will he be clear that he supports what Poland is doing? Will he pressure America to support that action?

Ben Wallace: I shall say two things in response to my hon. Friend. First, I support the steps to allow Ukraine to continue to fly in its own airspace—its sovereign airspace—to deliver military effect against the massive amounts of Russian artillery that are indiscriminately killing and bombing places around the country. That is one reason why a no-fly zone is a problem, because it would mean that both sides do not fly. The first thing is that we need to protect Ukraine’s anti-air capability.
Secondly, what are the most appropriate tools? Obviously, the Ukrainians know and have said what they wish for. We have acted when they have asked us, which is why the new missiles we are talking about today are coming forward. It is a matter for Poland—I have said I will support whatever its choice is—and in the meantime we will continue to try to meet the outcomes that Ukraine wants with whatever methods we can.

Alan Brown: I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that, rather than getting to the stage at which we might need to rely on MOD assistance to get refugees here, it is better to get people here to the UK while they can get here. It is the same with humanitarian aid: we have the bizarre situation in which people who are displaced in Ukraine may need to use humanitarian aid, yet they could already be here in the UK where they have family members. If the UK is not going to lift the visa requirements for Ukrainians who come here, surely under the existing scheme, which applies to the family members of British and Ukrainian people who already live in the UK, we can use the information we have here, bring the people here and then process them and do the security checks while they are safely here in the UK, rather than wasting resources in Ukraine that could be better deployed elsewhere.

Ben Wallace: It is possible to do both. We can process them very quickly out there, and the key here is to—

Alan Brown: It is not happening.

Ben Wallace: Well, that is what we are going to try to fix this afternoon.

John Whittingdale: Three years ago, I visited Mariupol with my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, Michael Fallon, and we heard the Ukrainian armed forces’ appreciation of the help we were already giving them then through Operation Orbital, so I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today. Does he agree with the Secretary-General of NATO that the sight of bodies lying unburied on the streets in Mariupol is credible evidence that Russia is guilty of war crimes?

Ben Wallace: As I have previously reported, the International Criminal Court has opened an investigation. A number of countries, including Britain, are collecting evidence—Canada is taking quite a strong lead—and it is important that we follow the evidence. The open-source reports of not only civilian bodies but Russian dead abandoned by their own forces show a crime in itself. What a disgrace that the Russian generals have abandoned those young men who have been killed. The leadership of the Russian army deserve to be in court for betraying their own soldiers and, at the same time, for what they are doing to the civilians of Ukraine. They are criminally responsible and I hope they face justice.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Secretary of State for updating us on the UK’s actions in support of the Ukrainians’ heroic defence of their country. He will have noted that his update was received much more warmly than that given by the Home Office yesterday, and with good reason—I do hope that Home Office Ministers have noted that as well. We must act on all fronts. The need for humanitarian assistance is overwhelming. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the 1,000 UK troops who I understand from his statement are still on stand-by to provide humanitarian assistance? Where are they and under what circumstances will they be deployed?

Ben Wallace: We have not yet had any request for humanitarian support from neighbouring countries. As soon as they do request support, we will be happy to deploy those troops to help in that process. We have a NATO meeting next week, when perhaps those things will come to the fore, but that is what those troops are there for—they are earmarked to do exactly that.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the Home Office, having been a Home Office Minister and having sat in opposition across from Labour party Home Secretaries, I know that it is never an easy job in the Home Office. It is never a popular brief, and questions are never kind.

James Sunderland: I thank the Secretary of State for his bold and forthright leadership and pay tribute to all those in the MOD, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and beyond who are burning the midnight oil. The level of operational detail in the statement was unprecedented, for which I am grateful. The Secretary of State will know the importance of close air support in a tactical environment. What is being done specifically to support the Ukrainian air force?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, there are the high-velocity missiles to assist the Ukrainian air force to fly freely in the airspace. Also, one way the Ukrainians are delivering close air support—or, actually,  fires in depth—is through the Turkish TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles, which are delivering munitions to their artillery and, indeed, their supply lines, which are credibly important, in order to slow down or block the Russian advance.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement, for his clear commitment to donating military equipment to the Ukrainians, and especially for the Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles that will down even more Russian aeroplanes and helicopters—we look forward to that.
On support for Odesa, which is the last Ukrainian port that is open for Ukrainians to use—they severely damaged a Russian ship just this week—will the Secretary of State outline what naval support and capability is available to keep that last Ukrainian port open for what is undoubtedly the next step in the Russian war of aggression?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the southern flank. The south is the one area where the Russians have made advances, obviously using Crimea, which they illegally annexed in 2014. That part of the sea, both around Odesa and elsewhere, is heavily mined. That has helped Ukraine to defend its coastline; in fact, we can assume that the ship on which the media are reporting was hit by a mine, although that is unverified. Of course, the Russian navy is blockading those ports, which gives the Ukrainians limited capability to take on those ships. If there are ways in which we can help them to do that, we will explore them.

Robert Halfon: I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend and his team for the way they have conducted themselves in this awful situation. Understandably, my Polish constituents are incredibly worried because of Putin’s expansionism and the threat to Poland. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that Poland is making a huge humanitarian effort, supporting hundreds of thousands of refugees and proposing military support. Will he continue to ensure that Britain throws a protective arm around Poland, given the risks that that plucky country faces? I understand the position that my right hon. Friend set out earlier, but if Putin starts to carpet bomb across Ukraine, will he and NATO reconsider the issue of a no-fly zone?

Ben Wallace: On a no-fly zone, we have set out our position, and I am not going into hypotheticals and what-ifs. Nevertheless, at the moment the balance is that I do not think it would suit the Ukrainian disposition, given the amounts of heavy armour and missiles in the Russian stocks. The Russians have a massive advantage with shells and missiles, and they would not stop in a no-fly zone, whereas the few things that the Ukrainians have to reach the Russians at depth are in the air, and one of them would be hampered.
On the resilience and support to Poland, we put 150 soldiers out there and 100 soldiers when the Belarusian migrant crisis was happening. We have nearly 700 soldiers there now helping the country in terms of resilience and, indeed, with humanitarian issues, if needed. I spoke to my Polish counterpart yesterday, and I am hoping to visit next week. We will also look at air defence requests from Poland to protect its airfields. It  has been an ally for more than 150 years. We stand absolutely by Poland, shoulder to shoulder. When it comes to military requests, it is really important that we put the military equipment where it makes a difference and where the Supreme Allied Commander Europe wants it. There is often a danger in these events that we spread our forces all around for reassurance, but do not necessarily achieve the military tasks that we need to achieve.

Liam Byrne: I, too, want to thank the Secretary of State for Defence. It is now very clear that we need to re-contain Russia, which will mean resupplying Ukrainian forces, refortifying our frontline, and, crucially, repressing the Russian economy. At the moment, nobody can recognise the 275 figure that is being used for the number of sanctions that have been issued. The Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday heard evidence that the Government simply were not ready. Even today, the family of the founder of the Wagner Group have still not been sanctioned here, even though they have been sanctioned in Europe. When the Secretary of State sees the Foreign Secretary later today, can he ask her to get her act together?

Ben Wallace: I would have to have pretty wide eyesight, as my right hon. Friend is in Washington at the moment, but if I had some massive binoculars, I would definitely pass on the message. I am happy to try to get to the bottom of all the figures. On the amount of money that has been sanctioned, the statistics that I had was that the UK has frozen more funds in London than Europe and the United States, and that matters. The construct of sanctions are different in different countries, but I would be very happy to look into that. I do not think that there should be any hiding place—and nor does the Foreign Secretary—for any of these Moscow hoods who are running around, including the dreadful Wagner Group.

John Baron: In commending the Government for their robust response to this dreadful invasion and notwithstanding existing levels of support and our article 5 commitment to NATO, the Government are right to rule out a no-fly zone and also to emphasise that it is a difficult balance to ensure that any defensive support is calibrated not to escalate matters to a strategic level. With talk of Polish jets being donated in mind, what assurance can my right hon. Friend give that, whatever the outcome, this will achieve the right balance, because a wider war would not serve the interests of any population, let alone Ukraine?

Ben Wallace: My hon. Friend makes some wise observations. Just on the jet issue, and on all lethal aid issues, it is, in a sense, for each individual country to make the unique choice that it has to make. I have the duty of defending this wonderful nation, and it is those people for whom I have to answer, and we have to calibrate our action as suits. If the Polish Government feel that the security threat is so acute that it requires them to do that, I would fully understand their decision and stand by them. Let us remember that the countries that will face the direct consequence of a successful Russia over Ukraine are the bordering countries, because  we know that, in Putin’s mind, some of those are not genuine countries and some of those countries are the very places that he historically feels should either be punished or, indeed, coerced into his way of thinking.

Hilary Benn: I echo the thanks to the Secretary of State and his team. Will he pass on the House’s thanks to all his teams who are making this happen? On the Polish jets issue, it is, of course, a matter for Poland. Given that we are giving man-portable air defence systems and anti-tank weapons, does he regard the gift of aircraft as a defensive system, which is the word that he has used in his statement?

Ben Wallace: I think it depends on how those aircraft are used. If they are used as close air support to Kyiv, then it is obviously defensive. If a country is seeking to enter another sovereign territory, like the Russian air force is, then it is not. That is important to recognise, but, I am afraid, as I have said, it is a deeply bilateral decision for those countries. As a friend and ally to Poland, we would stand by its decision.

Desmond Swayne: He was warning for months precisely what was coming. Why did we not use the time that he gave us to forward deploy resources to deal with the inevitable flow of applications from refugees?

Ben Wallace: I do not know quite how to answer that question; the important thing is that we will fix it in the here and now.

Patrick Grady: How much of the MOD spending in response to the crisis will be accounted for as official development assistance? What impact has the Government’s decision to slash the aid budget and abolish the Department for International Development had on their ability to co-ordinate the humanitarian response?

Ben Wallace: I am not sure the Government’s decision to abolish DFID affected President Putin’s judgment one bit.

Tim Loughton: I applaud the personal lead being taken by my right hon. Friend and the strong role of the MOD and our forces. This morning, the Home Affairs Committee took worrying evidence from the Ukrainian ambassador and Ukrainian support groups. May I make two requests from that? First, it is reported that there are many thousands of unaccompanied Ukrainian children across the border, who have been taken there for safety, and that the number is growing. Can he make the offer that, when the welcome humanitarian and military supplies go in in military planes, he includes personnel from the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the largest employer of social workers, to help with the safeguarding worries that are now occurring on the border, and preferably bring the children back to the UK and do the checks that may need to be done? We do not need to change the law to grant them a six-month visitor visa at the very least.
Secondly, my Ukrainian constituents tell me that their friends in Ukraine are ordering over the internet body armour from British companies, because they are desperately short for their reserve and volunteer forces.  We need to do more to help equip those people who have bravely gone to the frontline as part of the standing military and do not have the sort of kit that we would expect.

Ben Wallace: On that last point, included in the increased package is more body armour, alongside what was donated by many countries in the conference in February. I am slightly in danger of entering into Home Office questions here, although I know that they took place yesterday. Although I was a Home Office Minister, one of the greatest delights was not being the immigration Minister, but the security Minister. All I will say is that I understand the feeling in the House, so does the Home Secretary and so does the Prime Minister, and we are working to resolve that matter as quickly as possible. As for the internal details of different immigration schemes, I gently refer my hon. Friend to the Home Office.

Eleanor Laing: I will protect the Secretary of State from the temptation to stray outwith his own territory.

Barbara Keeley: I, too, give my thanks to the Defence Secretary for his work and that of his team and for his compassion. I am afraid that I am going to raise another visa issue with him. My constituent is trying to get his young niece to the UK after she fled her home in Ukraine. After endless bureaucratic checks and delays, they have been told today that she has to travel nearly 300 km across Poland to get the decision on her visa. The Defence Secretary will understand that refugees such as my constituent’s niece have already made long and challenging journeys from Ukraine to Poland and now have to make more journeys just to get the decision. My constituent calls the Government’s approach to people fleeing the war in Ukraine “inhumane”. Given the meeting on the visa process that the Secretary of State mentioned, can he press on the Home Secretary the need to offer a compassionate and human response to refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine?

Ben Wallace: I do not want to run the risk of making you angry, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will say that I would be delighted to pass that case to my Parliamentary Private Secretary and press the Home Office to resolve it. If I indulge myself here, Madam Deputy Speaker will rule me out of order, because this is a question about the Ukraine situation through Defence.

Eleanor Laing: The Secretary of State is steering a careful and wise course, and I will endeavour to help him in doing so, but it is the case that the Government are acting as one, and we all recognise that.

Bob Blackman: President Putin was clearly counting on a quick victory, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his statement, but on the far-sighted view of training Ukrainian troops and, indeed, on supplying defensive weapons. What assessment has he made of the effectiveness of both that training and the defensive weapons in theatre, which, of course, can never be tested except in theatre?

Ben Wallace: There are two parts to that question. Whatever happens, one will be the lessons that we need to learn for our own defences and our own capabilities.  It is absolutely the case that one of the other assumptions that President Putin made was that the Russian army was invincible. For all the money that was spent, it did not really matter about the people in that army and it did not matter about battle preparation and all the things that we do to prepare people to go to war. Russia did not do that, and some of those so-called invincible weapons are now being taken apart by handheld weapons, some of which are provided by Britain. That is not something to gloat about. In the end, this is about the loss of human life. None the less, we can be proud that Britain followed up its determination to stand up for its values and its allies by supporting them with hard power as well as soft.

Stephen Flynn: In terms of the military response, the Secretary of State can and must be wholeheartedly commended. However, I do not necessarily share his enthusiasm for the Government’s humanitarian response. Indeed, I spoke with my constituent Mariya this morning, whose family in Poland cannot even get clarity from the Home Office on whether they should continue with pre-existing visitor visas or go for a family visa. Quite simply, it is a shambles. When the Secretary of State meets the Home Office this afternoon, can I ask him, for want of a better phrase, whether he will stick a rocket right up the Home Office?

Ben Wallace: On the immigration pathway, the overall number of 200,000 for family and uncapped for humanitarian is a good thing. The fact that Britain is the biggest single donor to humanitarian aid is a good thing. We should not underplay those two facts. I understand the frustration among both Ukrainians trying to flee and Members of this House about the speed of that processing. I said yesterday that the MOD will support the Home Office as requested; it has agreed in principle and we have work on today to make that go quicker.

Andrew Murrison: Exercise Cold Response and the reinforcing of Tapa camp are welcome and will reassure our Scandinavian and Baltic colleagues, but what is being done specifically with Lithuania? It is very much at risk, since Putin’s next move might very well be an attempt to link Russia proper with the Kaliningrad oblast.

Ben Wallace: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why some of these countries must take some of their decisions bilaterally, because they will face the consequences of a successful Russia in Ukraine and what will happen next. That is why we have paid extra attention to the Baltics. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, is going today to Estonia; I was happy to facilitate that, and I will do likewise for Scottish National party Members they wish to visit. It is important that we work through the Balts together. There are, I think, four enhanced forward battle groups there and we must ensure they are well co-ordinated. For a time, we put some of our Apaches through Lithuania. As my right hon. Friend points out, though, we are acutely aware that the area called the Suwalki gap, between Belarus and Kaliningrad, could be exploited for Russia’s purposes.

Ben Bradshaw: At the risk of destroying the Defence Secretary’s career, the reason he is getting so many questions on refugees is that hon. Members on both sides of this House wish he were in charge of the Home Office. Leading on from the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), how confident can the Secretary of State be that, if we do not confront Putin more directly now in Ukraine, we will not have to do so next month or next year, somewhere else in Europe?

Ben Wallace: I am afraid that is the $60 million question. We must all be mature about how we work that out, through analysis and through talking to people who understand it. There is no easy answer. Is Putin acting irrationally? Yes, he is; why would he have done this? Is he acting out of an ambition far beyond his perceived threat of NATO? Yes, he is; he has written about that himself and made speeches about it. Does he take a view that there are a number of countries in NATO that do not really belong in NATO? Yes, he does. That is very dangerous for the west, and I say with all passion that we must work at ensuring that we keep our alliances completely strong. That is the thing that makes a difference to him, plus the economic sanctions and the fact that his legacy now is that he is done. If he is going to make a mistake, it is to pretend that somehow his political reputation can survive this. If he wanted to further Russia, he has damaged it and sent it backwards. If he wanted to further his case as a great leader, he is now contained in a cage of his own making.

Bob Neill: I will briefly join the queue of those expressing our thanks that the Secretary of State and his Department are now involved in trying to sort out the very sorry process in relation to visas. I will perhaps use the good offices he has suggested to take up a particular case.
Returning to the issue of evidence gathering of war crimes, however, is it not important for future deterrence of not only Putin, but the rest of his regime, that it is clear that we are deadly serious about the gathering of evidence on war crimes? It may take many years before we are in a position to prosecute them, and it may be necessary to look, as some have suggested, at a dedicated international criminal tribunal to deal with jurisdictional issues. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we send a message that we are not going away on this—that we will amass the evidence and, however long it takes, we will pursue not only Putin, but those responsible right down the chain of command, and that when his regime falls, as Milošević’s did, the democracies of the world are coming for him?

Ben Wallace: I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces met the International Committee of the Red Cross only last week to discuss exactly that. It is absolutely right that they should know that the long arm of justice will follow them forever. My hon. Friend said something else important: this cannot be swept away by one man in the Kremlin. Right down through the chain of command, right now, those commanders sending those young men to their deaths must also face justice, military or international.

Matt Rodda: I thank the Secretary of State for the calm and professional approach he has taken to this difficult issue, and for the pressure he is applying to the Home Office to speed up the fair treatment of refugees. Will he also speak to other Government Departments about the lengthy delays that some medical convoys are facing? I have had approaches from my local Ukrainian community and I understand that other hon. Members across the House have faced this difficulty. There seems to be a genuine issue of red tape created by customs declarations. If he could raise that with other Departments, it would be a huge step forward.

Ben Wallace: I would be delighted to do that. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me that information, I will ask after this statement and investigate what more we can do. We have helped the Department of Health and Social Care to fly in some of its medical supplies, but I know that there are also many people driving out with supplies. If the customs are on our side, we can do something about it; if they are not, I will raise it with my international counterparts.

Aaron Bell: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the reporting and, extraordinarily, the opinion polls coming out of Ukraine that show that the people and the Government of Ukraine regard the United Kingdom as foremost among their friends in western Europe. That is in no small part due to his leadership and his foresight, as others have said. We supplied them with 2,000 anti-tank missiles before the invasion, and I welcome what he said in his statement about what we are doing today. Can he assure me that all future requests for further defensive military equipment by Ukraine will be met in the same way?

Ben Wallace: We will look at every request quickly and genuinely, and do whatever we can to help Ukraine. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments, but I think it is what Britain stands for. Whether I work with Sweden and Finland, non-NATO countries, or with aspirant NATO countries and countries who want to belong to our values, they all value what Britain stands for and her history.

Paul Bristow: Russia’s advance has been hamstrung by logistical difficulties, defections and now freezing temperatures; the convoy advancing on Ukraine has essentially been immobile for the past few days. Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Putin has badly misjudged the effectiveness of his own military and the resistance of the Ukrainians, backed up by western military aid and training?

Ben Wallace: I think there have been two major miscalculations by President Putin. The first was that his military was invincible and that the Ukrainian people would welcome him. His other major miscalculation was that somehow the international community was not united. He is wrong on that.

Clive Efford: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish the Secretary of State well in his discussions with the Home Office—it is a hard nut to crack. I spoke with a constituent of mine over the weekend who has family in Irpin. When she asked me about a no-fly zone, I explained the situation to her, but  the words came with some difficulty. Much as I support the position we are taking, when facing somebody who has family in a war zone, it is difficult to explain why we cannot intervene. She responded, “We need to be able to defend ourselves,” and said that they want access to more weaponry which we can supply to them. I know the Secretary of State is providing Starstreak high-velocity anti-air missiles and that he hopes that that will fall within the definition of defensive weapons. Is that definition a difficulty in providing the support that people in Ukraine are asking for, and is it something that will have to be kept under review?

Ben Wallace: That is always kept under review, depending on the actions of President Putin. I winced when the hon. Gentleman said the town was Irpin, because they are under daily artillery and missile bombardment, being literally flattened by the Russian forces. I can only pass on my support and hope for his constituent that she gets through this. We will do everything we can. When I speak to Ukrainians, it is about the outcomes they want. They do not want to be bombed, they do not want to be shelled and they want to be able to patrol their own skies. We think there are currently other ways of doing that without risking a wider war in Europe, and that is why we think it is important. Some of the mass devastation we see comes from artillery and missiles rather than the air, so we must find other ways of dealing with those.

James Wild: Providing Starstreak anti-air missiles will help Ukraine defend itself and so is very welcome. Given the situation on the ground and the practical difficulties, will the Secretary of State look at creative ways of delivering training so that this capability can be used by those brave Ukrainian forces?

Ben Wallace: Yes, we are looking at that at pace.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome the Defence Secretary’s very strong condemnation of, as he put it, the “indiscriminate and murderous” attacks on civilian areas. What will the UK Government’s position be next month on the UN-backed political declaration on restricting the use of wide-area effects explosive weapons in populated areas?

Ben Wallace: May I write to the hon. Lady, because that will be a Foreign Office lead and I understand the debate will be progressing next month?

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his excellent daily briefings. With Russia repeating false allegations that the US is supporting a Ukrainian military biological programme that would release deadly pathogens such as the plague and anthrax, what new steps are the MOD and other Government agencies taking to tackle the dissemination of such false information effectively?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Lady makes an important point, because Russia has not given up its false flags and false narratives. In fact, it has shut down nearly every avenue of information for its people, which again shows the fear that it is under—I think only yesterday TikTok was stopped in Russia. We absolutely must challenge those false flags, and we do—she has heard me call them out publicly. At some stages we did that by declassifying intelligence early, which we do not normally do. We should also be genuinely worried when false flags drop breadcrumbs leading to chemical weapons, nerve agents and biological weapons, because we all worry what is behind that in the first place.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to keep us updated and for his thorough answers to a very large number of questions.

Russian Oil Import Ban

Kwasi Kwarteng: With permission, I would like to make a statement on the UK’s phase-out of imports of Russian oil in response to Vladimir Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine.
First, I want to say what a privilege it was for all of us to hear President Zelensky’s historic address to the House yesterday. I am sure that all Members will join me in thanking him once again for his inspiring words and great leadership. It is with those words in mind that I come here today.
The UK joins key allies, including the United States, in halting the import of Russian oil, which makes up 44% of Russian exports and 17% of the Russian Government’s revenue through taxation. This action follows the most punishing set of sanctions that the British state has ever imposed on a G20 nation. Our trade, financial and personal sanctions are having an effect on the Russian economy. As I speak, the rouble has now fallen by nearly 42%, and the Moscow Exchange’s stock trading has been shut since 25 February. The British Government have sent a clear message to Putin’s regime and to those who support him in his war against Ukraine.
It is important to remember that Russia produces only a fraction of the fuel products currently imported in the UK. In a competitive global market for oil and petroleum products, demand can be met by alternative sources of supply. As a result of international revulsion at Putin’s invasion, Russian oil is already being excluded from much of the market, and currently it is trading at quite a sharp discount from other crude oil sources.
We want to go further. Yesterday I set out that the UK will be phasing out imports of Russian oil during the course of the year. This transition will give the market, businesses and supply chains more than enough time to substitute Russian imports. Businesses should use this year to ensure as smooth a transition as possible, so that consumers will not be affected. The Government will work with companies through a new taskforce on oil to support them to make use of this period in finding alternative suppliers. Yesterday I spoke with businesses, unions and representatives from the sector, and of course I and officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will continue to engage with and support British business.
Although Russian imports account for 8% of total UK oil demand, we should remember that the UK is a significant producer of crude oil and petroleum products. We participate in a global market for those products and we have resources in place in the unlikely event of supply disruption. Over the course of the year, the taskforce that we have set up will work closely with international partners, including the USA, the Netherlands and the Gulf to ensure alternative supplies of fuel products. Last week I addressed the International Energy Agency and tomorrow we will have an extraordinary meeting of the G7 Energy Ministers to discuss further steps.
Although businesses should do everything they can to secure oil from alternative sources, it is important to emphasise that they will still be able to import Russian  oil during this transition period. These measures target oil-related products imports only. The UK is not dependent on Russian natural gas, which makes up less than 4% of our supply. However, I will be exploring options to end that altogether.
I want to make it clear to the House that we must end our dependency on all Russian hydrocarbons. In the meantime, we need more investment in North sea oil and gas production as we make the move to cheaper, cleaner power. Turning off domestic production at this moment, as some are calling for, would be completely the wrong thing to do. We are not going to do that. The Prime Minister has also confirmed that the Government will set out an energy strategy to explain the UK’s long-term plans for greater energy security, including renewable and nuclear power, building on our 10-point plan.
This measure to phase out Russian oil, and those being taken by our allies, will move the west away from dependency on Russian oil. It will take us on a road to building a stronger and more resilient British energy system. It will increase the growing pressure on Russia’s economy and, ultimately, hamper Russia’s ability to impose further misery on the Ukrainian people.

Ed Miliband: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We are united against Russian aggression. We stand together in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Let me echo his admiration for President Zelensky, whose bravery and eloquence yesterday were extraordinary and inspiring.
On the Secretary of State’s immediate decisions, we know that Putin’s war machine is being funded by oil and gas, which is why it is right that every country does what it can to isolate the regime, and that every company does so too. We fully support the Government’s decision to ban oil imports, which is a welcome step. It is also right to work with companies and unions on how we implement that policy. What assessment has he made of the impact of the ban on petrol and diesel prices?
We also support the Secretary of State’s decision to seek ways of ridding ourselves of Russian gas imports. On the wider energy security context, it is essential that we learn the right lessons from this crisis. Although 50% of our gas comes from the North sea and only 4% from Russia, we pay the same price for our own gas as for that which we import because we operate in an integrated gas market, so we are absolutely exposed to these rocketing wholesale gas prices, which are currently up 100% on the month and 800% on the year.
Therefore, the right lesson to learn is surely that we have to go much further and faster in developing home-grown zero-carbon power, including renewables and nuclear, which can free us from the whims of autocrats and dictators who can use fossil fuels as a geopolitical weapon. Does the Secretary of State agree this is the right lesson and that policy will need to change? In particular, does he agree that we should finally end the effective moratorium on onshore wind in the planning regulations, which since 2015 has denied us power each and every year equivalent to our gas imports from Russia? Does he agree that we should ramp up our offshore wind so we go well beyond 40 GW, and that it is time to finally get serious about energy efficiency—the best way of cutting energy demand and an area in which the Government have not succeeded in past years?
There needs to be a phased transition in the North sea, but will the Secretary of State now clarify the Government’s position on fracking? Will he confirm that the moratorium that was put in place will remain in place—no ifs, no buts—as fracking would not make any difference to the prices consumers pay, is dangerous and would take decades to come on stream? [Hon. Members: “No!”] They do not agree with me. I have a position against fracking; they support fracking. We would love to know what the Secretary of State and the Government think and I am sure they would, too.
Let me ask the Secretary of State about the cost of living crisis facing families, arising from what is happening to oil and gas prices. We have consistently warned the Government that their measures were wholly inadequate to address the rise in energy bills. Will he undertake to tell the Chancellor that, in his spring statement, he must come back with much more help for both families and businesses?
We are united in our support for the people of Ukraine. We will support the Government in everything they do that can cut off support for the evil and barbaric Putin regime, and we urge the Government to learn the right lessons for our country from this crisis, so we can achieve both energy security and energy sovereignty.

Kwasi Kwarteng: In his customary way, the right hon. Gentleman raised a large number of questions, the majority of which I hope to deal with. He spoke against Putin’s barbaric invasion and completely illegal actions. I am very pleased that he reflects our sentiments and that we have a mutual interest in making sure that Putin fails.
As far as the cost of living is concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an extensive intervention, and it is wrong for Opposition politicians to say that the price cap that will be set in August will necessarily be higher than it is today. We simply do not know. As the right hon. Gentleman understands, the price cap will be set retrospectively, looking at the average price. It may well be higher, but there are circumstances in which it will not increase as much as he imagines. As is always the case, we take an ongoing approach to looking at the price cap. We speak to Ofgem all the time and Ofgem is engaged in work on how the price cap is calculated.
I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to support investment in the North sea, making sure that gas is a key transition fuel, something that many people on the Opposition Benches may disagree with. He is right to stress an increased focus on renewables and nuclear power—we are absolutely at one in our agreement on that.

Robert Jenrick: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. We have to brace ourselves for the greatest impact on living standards that any of us has known in our lifetime, which necessitates a more pragmatic approach to energy policy. It means accelerating investment in renewables, potentially lifting the effective moratorium on onshore wind, looking again at fracking and taking all possible advantage of our domestic supplies in the North sea as part of a transition. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that, and also that it would be perverse and dangerous to take away oil from Russia and replace it with oil and gas from Iran and Venezuela, two regimes that are just as malign and dangerous as Putin’s in Russia?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have to look at all the possible technologies that can give us as much resilience as possible. We have to shrug off a lot of outdated dogma in this area, and I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is full square behind nuclear, because as I remember, when he was Secretary of State, he was not the most supportive of the nuclear industry. My right hon. Friend is right to identify potentially hostile powers and we are keen to diversify away from providing resources to those powers.

Stephen Flynn: I think it is safe to say that we in this Chamber all broadly support the statement that the Secretary of State has made and, while there will be arguments about the potential speed of the transition, we cannot escape the sheer scale of what has been announced today. This is a seismic shift in UK, US and indeed European energy policy. However, we also cannot be blind to the fact that there will be consequences and one of the potential consequences is retaliatory action from Putin himself. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to that matter?
On that point, if there were to be gas and oil shortages on the European continent, as a producer of oil and gas, would that not emphasise the importance of Scotland’s North sea oil and gas reserves? In terms of resources and Scotland’s resources in particular, the renewable resources that Scotland has are enormous: 25% of Europe’s entire offshore wind capacity sits off the coast of Scotland. I was a bit disappointed that the Secretary of State did not say more about renewables, so I would like to hear a little more from him about the additional support he intends to give to onshore and offshore wind, tidal, hydro pump storage, hydrogen and so on and so forth, and what the timescales for that progress will be.
Of course, the second big consequence will be for consumers. We cannot escape that fact: there will be inevitable price rises, irrespective of what the Secretary of State intimated about the price cap. Will he commit to using every single penny of additional resource that comes from the North sea oil and gas sector to insulate households from the looming cost of living crisis?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I was very determined not to inject any kind of partisan tone into these proceedings, but it struck me as particularly bizarre to hear the hon. Gentleman defend our North sea transition deal and the considerable oil and gas assets in Scotland. I would be very interested to hear what his Green counterparts in the coalition north of the border thought of his remarks.
In relation to protecting consumers, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are fully committed to the price cap, and review it all the time to determine how effectively it can operate. Of course, we are 100% behind renewables. Regarding onshore wind, it is important to remind the House that we lifted the ban on the pot one auction last year, which has led to a huge boost for onshore wind.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and very much welcome the overall emphasis on replacing fossil fuels with renewables in the longer term. However, does his Department understand the urgency of the present short-term situation for not just prices, but security of  supply? The Government have announced support for households, but what about businesses? Businesses tend to buy on six-month contracts and his hope that the situation will rectify itself within a few months is, I am afraid, hopelessly naive. We are facing a crisis in energy bigger than the oil price shock of the 1970s and it is likely to have as big an impact, or a bigger impact, on our economy than that had on our economy then. Is his Department seriously engaged with this situation with the necessary urgency?

Kwasi Kwarteng: We are absolutely engaged with that. As someone who is very interested in the 1970s, my hon. Friend will remember that the oil price quadrupled in three months. We are facing a difficult time. The Department is fully aware of the urgency of the problem, but he will appreciate that a lot of the investment that we needed to make simply was not made. We did not make enough commitment to nuclear—that was a historical mistake of previous Governments—but we are focusing on dealing with the problem in the here and now, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are coming up with a plan in the next few days to track—[Interruption.] I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who was responsible for energy policy in the last Labour Government, is smirking from a sedentary position, when he comprehensively failed the nuclear sector, completely failed on energy supply and completely failed on energy resilience. We are still trying to clean up his mess. I say to my hon. Friend that we are working on these plans.

Eleanor Laing: We will have no more interventions from a so-called sedentary position.

Darren Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He will know that many local authorities, NHS trusts and other public bodies are locked into gas supply contracts with Gazprom. To get out of them, the Government need to bring forward legislation to amend the public procurement rules. Will he do so?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The position in respect of Gazprom is that the UK company is separate from the parent but, should anything happen to Gazprom, just as with any other supplier of energy, we will take the appropriate steps.

Desmond Swayne: When we sanction Russia, we also sanction ourselves. We need to be clear with the British people, do we not, that this is a sacrifice we are expecting them to make, when the Ukrainians are making so much greater sacrifice.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in this country have an intuitive, heartfelt feeling for the people of Ukraine. People understand—I have seen it in my constituency at the weekend and I am sure he has seen it in his—and are willing to endure hardships in solidarity with the heroic efforts that the people of Ukraine are making. People understand that in this country, because we are a generous and giving country.

Caroline Lucas: The Government are right to get off Russian oil and gas—I welcome that—but wrong to propose replacing it with new domestic production. Our dependence on fossil fuels is what got us into this energy crisis in the first place, and that is why many of us, including the International Energy Agency, are calling for no new licences. The real insanity is trying to get out of one crisis by plunging ourselves into another. More extraction from the North sea will keep our bills high and drive us past safe climate limits, and fracking will not help. Will the Secretary of State use this moment to launch an emergency green revolution? Will he get serious at last about energy efficiency, and will he wean the UK off not just Russian oil and gas, but all oil and gas now?

Kwasi Kwarteng: On this question, I have to confess that the hon. Lady and I have completely different views. We are diametrically opposed. I agree with her on the net zero commitment, but this idea that we can simply switch the lights off, so to speak, on oil and gas is absurd. [Interruption.] It is completely absurd and we need to have investment in the North sea.

Caroline Lucas: “No new licences” is what I said.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I think I said quite clearly no more shouting from people who are sitting down.

Alun Cairns: I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement and pay tribute to him and his predecessors for the diversification they have made to the supply, security and sources of the energy mix over recent years, despite the lack of investment in nuclear during the 2000s leading up to 2010. Does he agree that oil will remain a key source of energy for some time to come as we are transitioning? What consideration has he therefore given to bringing about influence on OPEC nations to produce more oil so that the global supply can be better managed?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend raises a particularly important point. We had a discussion at the IEA ministerial only last week where we all agreed as a collective to release our stock. That was an American initiative that we supported. Clearly, we need to work as an international community to ensure we can provide enough supply to dampen the increase in prices that we are seeing.

Mick Whitley: I welcome the spirit of these plans, but I urge the Government to act even faster. Russian gas and oil constitutes just a tiny fraction of the UK’s energy mix and we must break this last lifeline to the Putin regime as soon as we can. I am also deeply concerned to hear Government Members call for a resumption of fracking, which would be a betrayal of the commitments we made to the world in Glasgow just five months ago. Will the Secretary of State today commit to ruling out further investment in fossil fuels and instead pledge his Department’s support for an ambitious new green deal and wide-ranging investments in renewables, including the Mersey tidal project, so that we can finally set ourselves on the path of true energy independence?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As Energy Minister and now Secretary of State, I have been totally committed to increasing the supply and production of renewable power. We reopened the pot one auction for onshore wind. For the first time ever, we had a pot ringfenced for tidal stream technology. I have introduced an annual auction for offshore wind. I am completely with the hon. Member in being 100% behind renewables and the green revolution.

Andrew Bowie: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for his statement, but for his continued and unflinching support for the oil and gas industry that I am proud to represent much of in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. On that, despite the importance of energy security, which has been brought home to us all through the tragic scenes we are seeing on television right now, is it not absurd that the Scottish Government’s official position continues to be that we should have no new licences, no new exploration and no new drilling in the North sea?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My answer to my hon. Friend is that he is absolutely right. It is the North sea transition deal—“transition” is the key word—not the North sea extinction deal, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and his Green friends north of the border are pursuing. We have a very different approach from Members on the Opposition Benches, and long may that continue.

Dave Doogan: “Transition” is the key word, as the Minister has just said. We need to pivot very quickly towards renewable energy, but this is a sharp reduction in oil and gas imports, as 8% come from Russia. We welcome that measure, but insofar as that will lead to a net reduction in the availability of oil and gas, it will also lead to a net reduction in emissions, which will not be maintained. We will need to supplement that demand in the short term. What discussions does he plan to have with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can meet that need with the maximum economic benefit to oil and gas services companies?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am happy to speak to colleagues in the Scottish Government about these issues. The hon. Member should remember that while we are banning the import, it is a phasing out. We could have gone down the US route and had a 45-day grace period, but that would have been too disruptive to the supply chain. I would be happy to talk to him and his Scottish Government colleagues about how we can manage the process, and that is exactly why in the statement I also announced the formation of a taskforce to deal with that transition.

Richard Fuller: In regard to the UK’s Russian oil ban, I am convinced of the moral case, although I am sceptical about the efficacy of such a ban in the long term. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to keeping all options open, but he will be aware that moving faster on the transition to green puts greater costs on households from technology risk. Will he therefore look again at options on insulating homes and Government support for home insulation as part of the package?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend, like other Members across the House, is right to focus on energy efficiency, because that is clearly a big part of this conundrum. We have had some successes, but we have also done some things not as effectively as we could have done. There were elements of the green homes grant that worked, and elements that did not work as well. I am constantly trying to improve the offer on energy efficiency with the public sector.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister has been asked twice now specifically about fracking and has completely avoided answering the question. Would he like to have another go?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I will have a go, and I will be very clear. Funnily enough, I was a Minister at the time when the written ministerial statement on hydraulic fracturing was made. The Government have always been clear that we will take a precautionary approach and support shale gas exploration if it can be done in a safe and sustainable way. That remains our position, and we will be evidence-led. That is what we wrote and said in 2019, and we are still committed to that.

Robert Halfon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. On oil prices, he will know that prices at the pumps are reaching £1.60 a litre. Hard-pressed motorists are paying over £16 more than a year ago and hauliers are paying more than £120 every time they fill up at the pumps, which is literally unaffordable for most people around the country. I recognise that the Government have done a lot with the fuel duty freeze, but the Irish Government have today announced a rebate of 20 cents on petrol and 15 cents on diesel. We must do the same. He must make the case to the Treasury, so he should not just fob me off. Will he introduce PumpWatch, as recommended by FairFuelUK, which would monitor prices from the big oil companies to ensure that motorists are not ripped off at the pumps when the petrol pump price rockets as the oil price goes high but goes down like a feather when the oil price lowers?

Kwasi Kwarteng: No right hon. or hon. Member has done more for motorists over the last 12 years than my right hon. Friend. I completely hear his imploring the Treasury to help consumers. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided a wide range of measures that offer some support, but we are always happy to talk to him to see how we can improve the offer.

Sammy Wilson: It is a great pity that it has taken a war in Europe to show how mad our energy policy is. Nevertheless, I welcome the Secretary of State saying that turning off domestic production of North sea oil and gas would be completely insane right now. Does he agree that it would be equally insane to turn our back on the shale gas that is available in the north of England, which would help to make us less dependent on foreign resources, create jobs, give us security of supply and give the Treasury revenue from gas? Does he agree that the Prime Minister’s decision not to concrete over the wells that are already there is the first step to the exploitation of that gas?

Kwasi Kwarteng: In conversation with the Prime Minister, we were clear that it did not necessarily make any sense to concrete over the wells. We are still in conversation  about that. As I said, our position on the moratorium has always been the same: if fracking can be done in a safe and sustainable way, the Government are open to the idea. We have always said that; the position has not changed. With respect to the North sea, I fully agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman said.

Selaine Saxby: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the work done by Conservative Governments to increase our renewable energy capacity by 500%. As we move towards the new normal of a greener and more secure energy supply, will he commit to increase the capacity coming out of the Celtic sea and accelerate the roll-out of floating offshore wind and the target that it can deliver on?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As my hon. Friend remarked, floating offshore wind is key to accelerating our renewables offer. In the next few days, we will hopefully be setting some slightly more ambitious targets for our 2030 ambition than we have hitherto set.

Ben Bradshaw: Given that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 years, why has the Secretary of State not already lifted the damaging moratorium put in by David Cameron on onshore wind—the cheapest and quickest way of generating renewables?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a moratorium on the pot one auction, which we lifted two years ago. I am pleased to say that in the fourth auction round, we have a separate pot that is ringfenced for onshore and solar technologies. Onshore will be fully reflected in that auction.

Andrew Murrison: The Government are right to be cautious about windfall taxes, but it is worth Conservative Members remembering that it was Baroness Thatcher who introduced them in 1981. Given the extraordinary profits particularly of BP and Shell in recent times, and given the very real prospect of simply unaffordable bills landing on our constituents’ doormats in the near future, will the Government at least keep that option open?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend is well versed in departmental responsibilities and he will know that issues to do with taxation are squarely within the remit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I personally feel that a windfall tax is not the way to go in this moment, because there is huge uncertainty about investment in the North sea as it is. If we were to entertain the idea of a windfall tax, that would simply frighten the investment, destroy jobs and destroy wealth creation. I do not think that is in anyone’s interest.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Putin’s bloody war in Ukraine is being financed by Europe’s addiction to fossil fuels, so we have to speed up our green transition, but more than one in 10 Welsh households are living in fuel poverty and the number is growing daily. Starved of public transport investment, Wales is the most car-dependent nation in the UK, so we will be  disproportionately affected by rising prices. Rural regions of Scotland and England with high levels of car dependency are eligible for the rural fuel duty relief. Will the Secretary of State extend that to Wales?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Even if I wanted to, that is not in my power, but I would be very happy to talk to people across Government to address the issue that the right hon. Lady has raised.

John Lamont: I welcome the Government’s statement today and their plans. Are they aware, however, of current supply issues for red and white diesel? Businesses in the Scottish Borders have contacted me in the last day or so to say that there are real issues in sourcing red and white diesel. Indeed, suppliers are reporting that Grangemouth will run out in the coming days. Are the Government aware of that, and will they investigate it further?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who consistently and ably defends his constituents’ interests. The red diesel phase-out was announced two years ago, and I would be happy to talk to him to see how we can manage that transition.

Mike Kane: To follow on from the question of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), many businesses, such as aviation, which has a massive impact on my constituency, hedge their future fuel costs, but many will be hugely exposed because they have not hedged those costs. Is the Department doing some analysis of the exposure of such businesses?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point. The Department is always looking, particularly at a time of extreme price volatility, at how prices affect the supply chain and businesses. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), was speaking to energy intensive industries this morning, as I was, and we are fully alive to their plight.

Lee Anderson: We all welcome the banning of Russian oil and gas to put the squeeze on Putin, but what about Russian coal? We currently import more than 500,000 tonnes a year of coking coal, which is the same type of coal—metallurgical coal—that can be mined safely and cheaply in this country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we can get it out of the ground cheaply and safely, we should do that without delay?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend will know that the specific issue relating to the Cumbrian coking mine is under judicial review but, as I said in my statement, we clearly want to move away from Russian hydrocarbons. That is absolutely our intention.

Wera Hobhouse: Obviously, the crisis makes us all aware of consumer energy prices and how to contain them to some degree. To reduce the average energy cost for consumers, we need a replacement for the green homes grant that is far more comprehensive and that recognises that solar power, battery storage and smart metering must be part of the solution. What are the Government’s plans to roll out residential solar  much more ambitiously, which, together with battery storage and smart metering, could save the average consumer up to £900 annually on their energy bill?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will appreciate that we have done quite a lot to drive solar. I referred to the fact that we have restarted the pot one auction, which is all about onshore wind and solar. When we announce the result, there will be lots of solar projects that will hugely increase solar capacity in this country.

Bim Afolami: The Secretary of State knows that I am a strong supporter of his policy to end reliance on Russian oil and of the need to intensify our investment in renewable energy. There are many rural communities in constituencies such as my own and, I suspect, across the country that rely on heating oil. What plans does he feel his oil taskforce will make for securing the availability of heating oil, ensuring the price of heating oil does not rise out of ordinary people’s reach and intensifying energy efficiency for homes, particularly for the older buildings that we find in many rural communities in areas such as my own?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The taskforce will do exactly what my hon. Friend has asked for. It will look at where we can source supply at the cheapest rate and how we can increase our independence. It will look at taking away our reliance on Russia and at sourcing oil at the cheapest rate. There is an issue about further interventions for heating oil, and we are in discussions with the Treasury and others across Government all the time about how we can lessen the burden on our people.

Geraint Davies: The Secretary of State will know that his Department refused support for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, but the new Blue Eden lagoon project is nevertheless going ahead. Instead of looking again at fracking, which generates 5% of fugitive emissions—that makes it worse than coal for climate change—will he look at supporting the Welsh Government and Wales overall in marine technologies and renewable technologies, alongside looking at organic batteries at scale, which can store such renewables without causing pollution?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. We have done a huge amount as a Government in driving renewables. I was very pleased to see that the tidal stream auction has been ringfenced. On the specific Swansea lagoon project, I, as the Energy Minister at the time, and the Secretary of State felt that it was not economic, but generally I do not think any Government have done more for marine renewables and marine energy.

Mark Jenkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s swift and decisive action on phasing out Russian imports. To echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), as our minds are now focused on increased domestic production, such as that from the North sea, does the Secretary of State agree with me that the benefits of domestic supply chain resilience and security should also encompass  other critical minerals, such as coking coal, of which we looked to Russia for over 750,000 tonnes—50% of our requirement—last year?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a diversity of sources for coking coal; we are not just looking to Russia. He makes an excellent point about critical minerals, and he will appreciate that this is the first Government ever to have a critical minerals strategy. It will be published in the next few weeks, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) is leading on that within the Department.

Alan Brown: Electricity from gas power stations is one of the ways that we meet peak electricity demand. The Secretary of State knows that dispatchable energy can also be created from pumped-storage hydro, which is a completely renewable source. To minimise our reliance on gas and our switch to renewables, he knows that SSE is ready to go ahead and build Coire Glas in the highlands. Will he commit to agreeing a minimum floor price with the SSE, so that it can get on and build, and will he confirm the timescale for such an agreement?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am really delighted that the hon. Member raises this. I think he has raised it at every BEIS questions for the past 18 months, and I will keep saying what I have said before. We are interested in the technology, but I need to look at the specific proposals he is suggesting, and we obviously need to work out whether it is value for money. Those are the parameters we always look at.

Alexander Stafford: Yesterday at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, we had a panel of experts talking about this very issue, and when the issue of fracking was raised, they were unanimous in their voice that it would be neither effective nor cost-efficient, would not do anything for the price and was actually a bit of a red herring. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that fracking is a red herring, and that we should instead focus for energy on more renewables and even more from the North sea, because fracking just does not work in this country?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I think we can look at a range of technologies. We looked at the fracking issue—I was the Energy Minister at the time—and there were issues regarding the seismicity of various projects. However, we have always had an open mind, and we have always said, and I will repeat it, that we will support shale gas exploration if it can be done in a safe and sustainable way. We will be led by the science on whether this is indeed possible, so there are lots of experiments and empirical evidence that we need to consider.

Jonathan Edwards: The Secretary of State mentioned in his statement the need to protect the Ukrainian people from further misery. As he knows, Ukraine is a country with historical debt problems, and the full-scale Russian invasion we are witnessing will inevitably make matters worse for them. Considering this is likely to be a prolonged crisis, can he assure the House that the British Government will be leading international efforts with the IMF, the World Bank and the G7 to offer Ukraine debt relief?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The issues about Ukrainian debt relief are for a much wider set of participants than are reflected in this House. We will do everything we can to support the Ukrainian people, and we are looking at every possible intervention that can in some way lessen the burden of this ferocious assault.

Richard Holden: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The sanctions today are an excellent next step in what we are doing to clamp down on Russia’s ability to fund its war machine, but my constituents have two questions. First, how can they best support the Government’s actions with direct contributions themselves? Secondly, in their own interests as well, what is the UK going to do to boost our domestic oil, gas and coking coal supply to ensure not only that jobs are created here in the UK, but that we reduce our dependence on other international players at this point?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issues of critical minerals and of security of supply could not be more important, and that is why I have commissioned a critical minerals strategy. On the help his constituents have offered and their full support, there are lots of ways in which we can contribute financially and materially. I helped organise such an effort in my constituency only last week, led by my excellent party chairman, Mike Brennan, but there are lots of ways we can help. On security of supply, that is absolutely, as the Prime Minister has said, our most important consideration right now.

Margaret Ferrier: Banning Russian oil will come at a cost every day for people across the UK, and it is a price I am sure they accept the necessity of due to this war by Putin on Ukraine. However, with an already growing cost of living crisis and soaring energy bills, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor about financially supporting green, clean and low-cost energy provision, so that it can be accessed faster and more broadly?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I, and our Departments, speak all the time about these issues. The hon. Member will appreciate that there is a spring statement, but at the beginning of February my right hon. Friend announced an extensive £9 billion of projects. We will be looking across the year at how this market develops, but fiscal interventions, as she will appreciate, are a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Ben Spencer: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today. It cannot be right that we are bankrolling the Russian state and war machine through buying Russian oil and gas, and I am glad that we are moving to fix this at pace. He will know that we import quite a lot of aviation fuel from Russia, and his Department has done fantastic work in developing sustainable aviation fuel and its manufacture in the UK. Will he use this as an opportunity to drive that forward at even greater pace to set up SAF manufacture in the UK?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. With the dismal prospect of the ferocious aggression  and violence that we are seeing, one of the things we are thinking about is a more sustainable future. A very thin silver lining on a very dark cloud is the fact that we are talking about resilience and sustainability, and I am absolutely delighted to be working with my hon. Friend and with right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Transport to make sure that we accelerate the adoption of sustainable aviation fuel.

Rachael Maskell: The pace at which we divest from Putin’s fossil fuels is important for stopping this war. As a result, as in wars past, if we scaled up our manufacturing to see retrofitting and our renewables industry, that could be not only the saviour of the Ukrainian people, but the saviour of our planet. Will the Secretary of State not only scale up, but lead an alliance of countries that need to make such urgent diversification to ensure that we apply this pain to Putin’s regime as quickly as possible?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We must work internationally across countries and come up with an alliance that can confront Putin in that way. That is why we are having an extraordinary meeting of G7 Energy Ministers tomorrow. However, it is relatively easier for us and American colleagues to shut ourselves off from that dependency than it is for colleagues in Europe, who are far more dependent on Russian gas and hydrocarbons.

James Davies: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement about a ban on Russian oil imports. Does he agree that the increasing need for self-reliance on energy sources means that it is right that we invest in renewable energy schemes in this country, including the possibility of a large tidal range facility in north Wales?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I hear the clamour for a tidal range facility in the Vale of Clwyd, and I am sympathetic towards it. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be good enough to acknowledge that for the first time ever in the fourth auction round we have a tidal stream auction pot. We are committed to doing all we can to further the development of marine renewable energy.

Deidre Brock: The Secretary of State said that he was 100% behind renewables and he has mentioned the tidal stream pot, but I would like him to offer so much more support for tidal energy schemes, in which Scotland can play such an important role. It is a such a cleaner, greener and cheaper alternative to nuclear.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I recognise the hon. Lady’s commitment to tidal stream, and she will be good enough to notice that this is the first time that any British Government have committed to supporting any marine energy renewable project. There is always the clamour for more. We should do more, and we could do things more quickly, and I am happy to work with her and other Members across the House to see how best we can do that.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for his thorough answers to a great many questions on this important subject.

Points of Order

Bob Seely: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order, and it may be that you will be good enough to hear one or both of them. The first pertains to how we treat Members of the House of Lords, and I ask this in genuine good faith. There are Members of the House of Lords who may have engaged in ethically questionable practices in relation to work, lobbying or otherwise, for the Russian state or its proxies, formal and informal. We are not—perhaps for good reason, perhaps not—allowed to name those Members of the House of Lords during a debate on, for example, lawfare, lobbying or enabling, and to do so requires some kind of special motion.
In addition, Lords can take leave of absence, which can be open ended. They are allowed to use the Lords facilities and even stationery. They cannot vote, but they then do not have to register their outside interests. That strikes me as being contrary to natural justice and democratic transparency, because we cannot name important players that may be influencing politics, or working for Russian proxies, formally or informally. I would like a ruling from the Chair as to what we can do to enable their participation in a potentially very important part of our national debate.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that, for a change, actually is a point of order, and I can give him an answer from the Chair. If the situation were as he describes, and it were not possible to question the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords in this place, that would indeed be contrary to our usual democratic practices. [Interruption.]—I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) perhaps listened. If that were the case, it would be contrary to our usual democratic practices, but that is not the case, and the hon. Gentleman has been slightly misinformed.
It is improper and contrary to our rules to raise in a general debate or question, and without notice, the conduct of a Member of either this House or the other place. However, it is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to put down a motion before the House, so that the House and the person in question has notice of his, or any Member’s, intention to raise those matters, and of the matters to be raised. That motion would then come before the House. Let me give him an example. An early-day motion is a motion before the House, so if he were to submit an early-day motion, that would be a motion before this House and he could raise questions on it. There are other ways of putting down a substantive motion. For example, he could go to the Backbench Business Committee and ask for time in the Chamber to debate the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords, if it were on a motion before the House.
I very much regret that people now do not understand such matters. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman, who is assiduous in his duties, but many Members do not understand what the procedures of this House are, and they do not understand what an early-day motion is. They think it is something to be brought forward by a pressure group, and they get hundreds of signatures, as  if that made any difference. An early-day motion is a way of putting a motion before this House, thus giving notice to anyone affected by or interested in it, of the fact that it is a motion before the House. The hon. Gentleman can, of course, get further advice on that from the Table Office, and I am sure the Clerks would be happy to help him draft any motion.

Bob Seely: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so grateful for that. My worry with the Backbench Business Committee is that it can take a month or two to get a debate, although one could perhaps persuade it of a greater need. An early-day motion—correct me if I am wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have never used early-day motions simply because I think they are PR vehicles—does not result in a debate in the House. We need a debate in the House on these matters, in part because it is covered by privilege, and the importance of using that in the public interest.

Eleanor Laing: Again, this practice has fallen into desuetude, and it is most unfortunate that Members who have not been in the House for a long time—since the days when things were done properly—do not realise that one way matters used to be raised before the House is that a Member would table an early-day motion. When the Leader of the House answered the business question, once a week, a Member would come into the Chamber and say, “Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion No. 236 in my name and that of 50 other Members, and will he provide time for a debate on that issue? It is extremely important for the following reason.” That way, the matter would be properly raised on the Floor of the House.
It is possible for the hon. Gentleman to do that, and the Table Office will give him advice. If it turns out that he has to wait two months, he should come and see me and we will work out another way of doing it. It is essential that matters of urgency and importance, and topical importance, can be raised on the Floor of this House. It is only because people do not have the proper advice on procedure that that is not being done properly. It is not because any Standing Order or rule of this House prohibits proper debate.

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for dashing into the Chamber—I was chairing a Delegated Legislation Committee. This morning, families awaiting the Ockenden independent maternity review into baby deaths in Shropshire, which was expected to be published on 22 March, were informed that, due to a number of unspecified “parliamentary processes”, the review would be delayed. As you can imagine, that is causing my constituents significant concern and added anxiety. What advice can you give me to ensure that this important review is published as quickly as possible?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which he gave notice of his intention to raise, but not long ago. I have not had the opportunity to inquire and cannot answer his question about what the parliamentary processes are to which he refers. I can well understand his concern and his constituents’ concern that this extremely important matter should not be delayed longer than is necessary. I suggest that perhaps he ought to speak to the Clerk of the  Journals, who could advise him about the parliamentary processes and, if necessary, how they can be speeded up. We all appreciate the importance of this matter coming before the House as soon as possible.

Bob Seely: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the debate on lawfare and the debates on Ukraine last week, a number of lawyers have written what I consider to be intimidatory letters to national newspapers, including the Daily Mail. If I understand the letter correctly, one firm, Harbottle and Lewis, has specifically implied that reporting outside the House of our words in debates in Parliament can be “unlawful and seriously defamatory”. That is relating to statements made by me in the House and the good Lord Rooker, if I may name his excellent work. Madam Deputy Speaker, would you like to say anything about that? It seems that we are dealing with an aggressive culture in the law of trying to intimidate not only members of the free press, but now Members of Parliament.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which, again, is a point of order. I have no objection to him raising two proper points of order within a few minutes of one another—it is all the spurious points of order to which we object. I recall very well the lawfare debate to which he refers; indeed, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who brought the debate to the Chamber, has miraculously appeared at the Bar of the House just as this matter is quite properly being raised. My recollection is that it was an important and powerful debate and that few people were present to hear and pay attention to it. It has since become all the more urgent and topical. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it as a point of order.
In technical terms, the point of order that he raises is a matter of interpretation of parliamentary privilege and of when it applies, how it applies and who applies it, which is too complicated to answer immediately. I once again refer him to the Clerk of the Journals. If he and the right hon. Gentleman wish to discuss the matter further, I am quite sure that my office and Mr Speaker’s office would be happy to discuss it with him. It is quite refreshing to have two points of order that are points of order. I thank him for them.

Pets (Microchips)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

James Daly: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision regarding pets with microchips; and for connected purposes.
I am stood here because of Gizmo and Tuk. Gizmo was a cat and a much-beloved family pet. She died in a car accident on 17 July 2016 when she was 15. In the words of her owner, Heléna, she
“was disposed of like a piece of trash”.
Tuk was a healthy 16-month-old rescue dog who was euthanised on 22 December 2017. Tuk was not scanned prior to euthanasia and was presented by an individual who was not his keeper. My Bill would introduce statutory requirements on local authorities and veterinary surgeons to address the failings highlighted in the stories of Gizmo, Tuk and many—too numerous to mention—much-loved pets.
Clause 1 would introduce a legal requirement for veterinarians to scan for microchips before euthanising pets. I am delighted that last year the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons updated its code of professional conduct to require that, before euthanising an otherwise healthy dog, veterinary surgeons must first scan the animal for the presence of a back-up rescuer. While that is most welcome, it must be put on a statutory footing rather be at the discretion of the veterinarian.
Subsection (2) would require the veterinarian to scan the pet on first presentation and contact the registered owner or back-up rescuer. It is crucial to highlight the importance of that back-up. Rescue organisations and breeders register their details on the original database as a secondary contact as part of the adoption contract or bill of sale. In a time of vulnerability, the secondary contact is there to prevent the animal from being unnecessarily euthanised and to alert the veterinarian to an alternative that is in place. That also allows the rescuer or breeder to remain a constant presence and provide support to the pet should it be abandoned or sold without the rescue organisation’s or breeder’s knowledge. If the adopter or owner does not keep the information registered on the microchip up to date, the secondary back-up rescuer information will enable the rescuer or breeder to be contacted in all circumstances.
As I said, despite the change in the RCVS’s code, the scanning of microchips prior to euthanasia remains at the discretion of the veterinarian and is not a legal requirement. Animals can still be subjected to destruction on the basis of behavioural issues or accusations of such ill behaviour. I do believe that to be right. The back-up rescuer provision allows time for comprehensive assessments, healthcare checks, reforming support and guarantees that any life-ending decision is based on the animal’s best interests, with all facts and alternative options examined.
The Tuk’s law campaign was started four years ago by the brilliant Sue Williams and Dawn Ashley, and it has had the fantastic support of Dominic Dyer. More than 100,000 people from all over the country supported the campaign, leading to a parliamentary debate on 28 June last year.
Clause 2 would place requirements on local authorities to make all reasonable efforts to take steps listed in subsection (2) with regard to deceased cats found on a public highway or otherwise reported to a local authority. Those steps include: making arrangements to pick up the cat; checking for a microchip; finding ownership details; contacting the owner to inform them of what has happened; making arrangements for the owner to be reunited with the cat; and ensuring that the cat is held and preserved by the local authority for up to seven days. There would also be a requirement under subsection (3) to record certain information in a register of cat and cat owner reunification organisations.
My constituent Heléna Abrahams has been campaigning for six years for Gizmo’s law, which is encompassed in the Bill, to ensure that no other pet owner has to experience what she suffered with Gizmo. The efforts of Heléna, Wendy and the whole team at Gizmo’s Legacy have secured the support of tens of thousands of people throughout the country for the proposed change in the law, and every day they work to ensure that those sadly deceased cats—much-loved family pets—are returned to their owners. Gizmo’s law is articulated in clause 2, and it is a testament to the kindness and humanity shown every day by Heléna and her team. There will also, hopefully, be another benefit of the Bill and Heléna’s hard work. She has worked in partnership with a pet food company, which has agreed to supply the appropriate equipment to any local authority that does not have a scanner. Clearly, that is to be recommended.
I hope that the Bill is a sensible step. Steps have already been taken; the Minister is a genuinely excellent Minister and the Department has interacted with me on this issue. I have been speaking in Parliament about this for two years, so I must apologise again to the House for that. However, Sue, Dawn, Heléna and Wendy are genuinely good people who are trying to do things for the right reasons—and that is the end of that.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman certainly held the attention of the House. Most remarkably, his speech came in at well under 10 minutes, so he will probably get in the “Guinness Book of Records” for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That James Daly, Jim Shannon, James Grundy, Luke Pollard, Tom Tugendhat, Mark Logan, Lee Anderson, Aaron Bell, Chris Green, Craig Tracey, Robin Millar and Sally-Ann Hart present the Bill.
James Daly accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 278).

Estimates Day - [3rd allotted day]Estimates Day

Department for Education

National Tutoring Programme and Adult Education

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022, for expenditure by the Department for Education: (1) the resources authorised for current purposes be reduced by £484,799,000 as set out in HC 1152,
(2) the resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £385,099,000 as so set out, and
(3) the sum authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £29,468,000.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Robert Halfon: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I particularly thank the members of the Education Committee, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for co-sponsoring the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). My hon. Friend is a brilliant Committee member and I appreciate all the work that she does.
To reassure the Whip on the Front Bench and, I am sure, the Minister, I should say that I fully support the estimates today. I will try to recommend things that I think can be improved and to argue that, although extra money has been raised, we need to ensure that we have value for money and that that money is spent well. I hope that the Government see my remarks in that spirit.
In last year’s autumn Budget, the Chancellor and the Education Secretary set out a vision of support for schools, skills and families. Of course, I agree with that—it is very important to focus on those three things—but I think that social justice needs to be added. I believe that the fundamental challenges now facing education are recovery from the covid-19 pandemic, addressing social injustices and early years intervention. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) is in her place; she is an expert on this issue in Parliament and does so much to ensure that the Government focus on early intervention.
It is also important for me, in opening this debate, to thank the teachers and support staff in schools and colleges in my constituency, who do so much to keep pupils learning and who have worked incredibly hard during the pandemic. I also thank the teachers and support staff around the country.
Clearly, the Government are making progress on skills and standards. Literacy rates are up and 1.9 million children are now in good or outstanding schools. The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill and the lifetime skills guarantee, which passed through the House of Commons only a couple of weeks ago, could be very exciting, alongside proper money—£3 billion of extra funding. That should be welcome; that is real money.
As the Education Secretary and Ministers know, I think that more needs to be done to increase the amount of careers encounters that young people have at school. The Government are suggesting just three—so one a  year in key years—but I suggest that there should be nine encounters altogether. That would not cost the Government any more in funding.
I have also suggested that additional funding should be made available to support adults to obtain a level 2 qualification as long as they can demonstrate their intention to progress to level 3, as per the lifelong learning entitlement. As I said in our debate on amendments to the skills Bill, many adults are not yet ready to do a level 3 apprenticeship. I want them to do so—it is wonderful that the Government are going to offer level 3 in the core subjects—but if they are not ready, it makes sense to give them the opportunity to start on a level 2 apprenticeship and use that for progression, as long as they progress to level 3 after that. I recognise that funds are difficult and that they are not readily available, but if we are going to bid for things in the next spending round, that should be a significant Government priority.
To go back to the careers encounters—what is known as the “Baker clause”—the Secretary of State has indicated to me that the Government want to do more on that. The Minister responsible for skills—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—has said the same. The Bill is being discussed in the Lords at the moment and no doubt this issue is being brought up by Lord Baker and many other peers. If we are serious about transforming adult education and building an apprenticeship and skills nation, we have to get more skills organisations, further education colleges, university technical schools, apprenticeships, apprentice organisations and apprentices into schools to encourage and set out the incredible career paths available, so that pupils know that there is an option not just of university, but of skills and apprenticeships.
As I said in the previous debate on this subject, when I go around the country and meet apprentices—meeting apprentices in all walks of life is one of the most enjoyable parts of my job—it grieves me that eight or nine times out of 10 they tell me that they have never been encouraged by their school to do an apprenticeship. My first speech in the House of Commons was on this subject in 2010, and that situation has not improved. I have even met degree apprentices who are doing incredible, high-quality apprenticeships—they do not have a loan and are going to get a good job at the end of their apprenticeship—who have offered to go back to their school to talk about their higher-level apprenticeship, but the school has turned them down. That has not just happened once—I have asked those degree apprentices about that—because, with their school, the whole culture is university, university, university when it should be skills, skills, skills.
I urge the Minister to introduce teaching degree apprenticeships. I do not understand why there has been resistance to them in the Department; we have policing degree apprentices, nursing degree apprentices and many public sector apprentices in other walks of life. We have apprentices in every other field, from engineering and law to plumbing and hairdressing. Why on earth cannot we have teaching degree apprentices? There are teaching assistant apprentices; there are also graduate teaching apprentices, but they have to go to university first. If we are to deal with the teacher  recruitment crisis—a third of new teachers are leaving before five years in the profession—one way to encourage teachers and would-be teachers would be by introducing teaching degree apprentices. I would like to know the Government’s view on that point. I see the Minister nodding; I hope it is a sympathetic nod.
On adult education and skills, the Government are making significant progress, even with the things that I am calling for, and it is important to recognise that. I am excited about some of what is going on. The Government are talking about skills and apprenticeships in a way that they have not talked for a long time. Importantly, they have also reversed the spending cuts to further education.
Harlow College is, I would argue, one of the best colleges in England. As its Member of Parliament, I have visited it nearly 100 times since 2010; it is one of my favourite places to visit in my constituency because I see there how important and transformative further education is. Colleges are places of academic, vocational and social capital and are doing many of the things that the Government want and need in order to ensure we address the significant skills deficits in our country. However, if we do not get educational recovery from the covid pandemic right, and if we do not address social injustices in education, many of our young people will be at risk of not even reaching that stage in their academic career or reaping the benefits on offer.
I want to focus on the catch-up programme, for which I campaigned. From day one, I was passionately opposed to school closures. I have said time and again that they were a disaster for our children. I know that schools were open for vulnerable children and for the children of key workers, but in the first lockdown more than 90% of vulnerable children did not go to school. We know the damage that that has done to educational attainment, to mental health—referrals are up 60% and eating disorders among young girls are up 400%—and to pupils’ life chances. Tragically, it has also meant enormous safeguarding hazards, with children suffering domestic abuse at home and joining county lines gangs. Closing the schools was a mistake and we should never do it again. That is why, alongside other hon. Members, I campaigned for the catch-up programme early on and was very excited when it was announced. I thought it was incredibly important.
Let us look at the figures on the negative effects of school closures. The Education Policy Institute is to education what the Institute for Fiscal Studies is to economics: it is an incredibly respected organisation. Its chair told the Education Committee:
“In our most challenging communities for the most disadvantaged youngsters, they could be five, six, seven—in the worst-case scenarios eight—months behind in some of their learning.”
Ofsted says that some of the hardest-hit children returning to school after the first lockdown had even forgotten how to eat with a knife and fork and in some instances they had lost their progress.
Given the importance of catch-up, there are real questions about whether the catch-up programme, particularly the national tutoring programme, is fit for purpose. My view is that, under Randstad, it is just not working. The Education Committee has heard evidence from multiple sources about the problems besieging its delivery. In January, Schools Week reported that the national tutoring programme had reached just 15% of  its overall target. Moreover, it reported that just 52,000 starts had been made through the tuition pillar of the NTP—just 10% of the 524,000 target.
I have met quite a few headteachers, not just in Harlow but around the country; the Committee has done roundtables and I have gone to schools. They have talked about the bureaucratic nightmare that they face while trying to use the catch-up programme and the national tutoring programme. There are also regional disparities: the NTP is reaching 96% of schools in the south-east, which is good news, but it is reaching only 59% in the north-east and the north-west, so there is a north-south divide yet again. Perhaps most alarmingly, the Department for Education’s annual report and accounts, published in December 2021, rated as critical and as very likely the possibility that the measures in the national tutoring programme to address lost learning would be insufficient.
Just last week, we heard that Randstad has removed the requirement to reach 65% of pupil premium children from the tutoring contracts with providers. What is the point of a targeted recovery programme if it does not reach those who are most in need, and if its targets are removed? Was the decision taken by Randstad or by the Department? I very much hope that the Minister will answer that question. Surely the whole point of the programme is that it is disadvantaged children, who learned the least during lockdown, who need most help. Every child suffered during the lockdown and we need catch-up programmes for all, but we must focus on the most vulnerable children. What is the point of that decision? I do not understand why the target of reaching 65% of pupil premium children has been removed. It is really important that the Minister explains what is going on.
The Government must also, as a priority, address the social injustices in our education system. The Department rightly points to higher standards; as I have mentioned, 1.9 million children are in good or outstanding schools, which is really good news. Until the pandemic, standards were going up, but we must also address social injustice in education.
Let me explain what I mean by social injustice. Just 5% of excluded pupils pass English and maths GCSE, just 7% of care leavers achieve a good pass in English and maths GCSE, and 18% of young people with special educational needs get a decent maths or English grade at the time of taking GCSEs. Attainment 8 scores for free school meal-eligible pupils varied across ethnic groups: for white British pupils, the average was just 31.8; for black Caribbean pupils, it was 34.1; Gypsy/Roma pupils scored 16.9; and Irish Travellers scored just 22.2.
Until a few years ago, we were making improvements to the attainment gap, but that progress is now stalling. Disadvantaged pupils are now 18 months of learning behind their better-off peers by the time they reach the age of 16. Progress had stalled before covid, so we cannot just blame it all on covid that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their better-off peers is 18 months.
Children’s special educational needs is, understandably, a subject that I care about very deeply and that my Select Committee has done a lot of work on. Parents and families have waited nearly three years for the SEN review to be published, and in the meantime they are wading through a treacle of unkind bureaucracy as they try to get a level educational playing field for their  children. The Committee has done a big report on special educational needs. It is wrong that children are not given a level playing field, it is wrong that so many families have to wait for education, health and care plans, it is wrong that the healthcare element of those plans is often non-existent, and it is wrong that there are not enough trained staff.
It is not always a question of money. I recognise that the Government put in an extra £800 million for special educational needs a year or so ago. It is also about money not being spent in the right way. We are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on tribunal cases that the local authorities always lose. Because children with special educational needs are getting a poor service, their parents are going to tribunals, and I believe that more than 90% are winning their cases. That money could have been spent on the frontline. This is what I mean about money not being spent in the right way; the same applies to the catch-up programme.
I have mentioned that just 5% of excluded pupils pass GCSEs in English and maths. Every day, 40 pupils are excluded from our schools and they are not ending up in some wonderful alternative provision. As we know, there is a postcode lottery. Of course there are good alternative-provision schools, but often in the areas where the most pupils are excluded there is poor or non-existent alternative provision. I agree with Michael Wilshaw that we should try to minimise exclusions and that we should invest in local support units in schools—even if they have to be in a separate building—to train staff and to ensure that parents understand their rights.
Our Committee wrote a report entitled “Forgotten children: alternative provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions”. The Government said that they welcomed the recommendations of the Timpson review, but what worries me is that very few of those recommendations have begun to be adopted. That is what I mean by addressing social injustice in education. I want disadvantaged pupils to benefit most from the catch-up programme. I want children with special educational needs to have a level playing field like everyone else, and to be able to get on to the ladder of opportunity. I also want excluded pupils—40 of them each day, as I keep repeating—to be given that chance in life, and not end up in prison. We know that 60% of prisoners have been excluded from school.
A further problem that the Government must confront is persistent absence, which has been highlighted by the Children’s Commissioner today. I call children who are persistently absent “the ghost children”. Even before the pandemic, the Centre for Social Justice reported that about 60,000 children were severely absent from school, and in the autumn of 2020 the total rose to more than 90,000. In her report, the Children’s Commissioner says that, according to a survey of local authorities, in the autumn term of 2021, more than 1.7 million pupils were persistently absent and 124,000 were severely absent. I pay huge tribute to her for highlighting that and for her work with the Government to try to get those children back to school. We are allowing this to happen: more than 100,000 children have mostly not returned to school since the schools were fully opened last March.
I urge the Minister to look at the recommendations from the Centre for Social Justice—I stress that this is my personal view; I am not speaking for my Committee  at this point—and to use the underspend from the tutoring programme to fund an additional 2,000 attendance practitioners to work on the ground and return these children safely and securely to school. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, who is better at mathematics than I am, says that that is about 13 per county, which is not a lot.
What are we going to do? Are we really going to allow this? These children are potentially facing enormous safeguarding hazards, so we have to get them back to school. The Government have said that they will introduce a register of children who are not in school and are being home-educated. That must happen, and it must happen sooner rather than later. I have campaigned for it for a long time, along with members of my Committee, and we recently produced a report on the subject.
If the Minister does not agree with the recommendation from the Centre for Social Justice for an additional 2,000 attendance practitioners, I urge him at least to ensure that there is a proper programme of action that we all know about to return those “ghost children” to school. We need to know exactly what is happening. Six attendance advisers are simply not enough to deal with this problem. Education cannot just be for the majority. Academic capital and social capital must go hand in hand. The Government must prioritise levelling the playing field of education so that every child, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, has the chance to climb the ladder.
Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire is present, I had better say something about early years provision. I suspect that she would be upset if I did not, because she is such an expert on the subject. The additional £500 million for family hubs that was announced in last year’s Budget is very welcome: it is an incredible amount of money. The Secretary of State visited my brilliant local family hub, which is run by Virgin Care and Essex County Council and does a great deal of work on parental engagement. As I have said, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their better-off peers is 18 months by the time the children reach the age of 16, but we also know that 40% of that attainment gap begins before children reach the age of five. Targeted support at this stage of life is therefore crucial. We also need to ensure that younger children from disadvantaged backgrounds are learning more at an early age.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to ensure that every baby has the chance of the best possible start in life is to ensure that all the services that support families are universal, and not in any way stigmatising?

Robert Halfon: I could not agree more. I have seen the work of Manchester Council in this regard and I think that it should be replicated throughout the country. More families would benefit as a result, particularly disadvantaged families.
Parental engagement is critical and the family hubs should follow a model of best practice. Feltham Academy, for instance, takes a “cradle to career” approach. When I was in Nottingham last week, I met the headteacher of  a school that trains parents to act as mentors in the community for other parents who would otherwise be disengaged from the school. That really works.
I should like the Government to consider, in the spending round, its funding of early years entitlements. I do not understand why the three or four-year-old child of an MP, when both parents are working and earning up to £100,000 each a year, qualifies for 30 hours of childcare, while the three or four-year-old child of a single parent in my constituency—or elsewhere in the country—who may not be able to work because they have that young child to bring up qualifies for just 15 hours. I cannot see how that can be the right decision on the Government’s part. I know the Minister will tell me that some poorer families qualify for extra benefits and extra hours, but the fact remains that that is the position.

Munira Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Halfon: I always give way to the hon. Lady and I promise to do so if she will allow me to finish this paragraph.
I am not necessarily asking for more money, but I do ask the Minister to work with colleagues and consider reducing the generous threshold that exists for parents to claim tax-free childcare, a subsidy that does not capture society’s most disadvantaged families. One way we could do this is by dropping the eligibility cap to £65,000 from the existing £100,000 mark. That could free up £150 million, which would go some way towards covering the additional outlay.

Munira Wilson: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. On his point about childcare, I declare an interest as he is talking about MPs with children who qualify for the 30 hours free childcare, as my three-year-old son does. We can have a good debate about who should and should not be eligible for that, and I agree broadly with the point he is making. Does he agree, however, that those 15 or 30 free hours are not actually free because most childcare providers cannot afford to provide childcare at the rate the Government are giving them? Parents are therefore regularly asked to top it up. I can afford the top-up, but many people just cannot afford it and therefore cannot make use of childcare, which is preventing them from going out to work.

Robert Halfon: I absolutely accept that where there are strains for providers of early years education, the Government should look at that and fill in the holes, but I think it varies. Some providers have found it very hard and some have managed to provide that service, but I accept the point the hon. Lady makes.
In conclusion, education recovery and the catch-up programme must be the immediate spending priority. I have previously described the Education Secretary as someone who can get mangoes in the Arctic and Brussels sprouts in the desert. He is that kind of person, and I am not surprised that he has managed to wangle all these extra billions from the Treasury for the catch-up and for an overall budget growth of almost 3%. That is a significant achievement in the current climate, and it has to be acknowledged. The House will have noticed  that I have not necessarily been asking for lots more money; I have been asking for the Department to spend the money more wisely. It needs to demonstrate, above all, that the catch-up programme is providing value for money. When the Minister goes back to the Treasury, it is going to say that it is not working, and the evidence out there is that it is not necessarily working for the most disadvantaged. There are serious issues regarding the catch-up programme and questions to be asked about whether children are fully recovering from the lost learning in the pandemic. There are long-term issues of social injustice that need to be tackled, and of course early years must be supported, as I have just set out.
I hope the Minister will recognise that these are the priorities for the Government and that education will finally get a long-term plan and a secure funding settlement. We can have a debate about how much it is, but if the NHS can have a 10-year plan and a long-term funding settlement and the Ministry of Defence can have a big funding settlement over the next few years and a strategic review, I do not understand why Education cannot have a long-term plan and a secure funding settlement, at least over a few years. That would give a lot of stability to everyone working in education, to schools, to colleges and to universities, and that would make a huge difference.

Munira Wilson: I find myself in a happy position, because normally I am furiously trying to cut down my speech to three minutes. I do not think that is going to happen today, however. I am really quite surprised and shocked at how few people are here for this debate. To my mind, education and our children’s future, particularly given the impact of the pandemic, is one of the most important issues facing us, and given that this debate is meant to be partly focused around the national tutoring programme, which is key to the recovery plan, I would have thought that Members on both sides of the House would be interested, given that children in every constituency are affected. I thank the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for his speech and congratulate him on securing the debate.
When I looked at the estimates and saw that they had been reduced from the beginning of the financial year, I was a little surprised. I know that there are explanations as to why that has been the case, but given that we have just been through one of the biggest crises that has faced our country since the second world war, which has had a massive impact on children’s learning, their lives and their mental health, I would have thought that, if anything, there would have been a surge of spending through this financial year. I would have expected to see the estimates go up, not down, so I am a little surprised by this. Maybe the Minister will explain more when he responds. Certainly in my constituency, where I am visiting schools week in, week out, every school is really struggling to make ends meet and increasingly relying on fundraising and parental donations, which I find quite shocking.
I see spending on children and young people as an investment, not a cost, and I would urge the Government to do the same. That investment should be made wisely, but the national tutoring programme, which was set up with the very best of intentions and ambitions, risks proving to be “a disaster”, to use the words of Lee  Elliot Major, the professor of social mobility at Exeter University. As the right hon. Member for Harlow has already said, even the Department’s own annual report published in December stated that the risk of catch-up efforts failing to address lost learning was “critical or very likely”.
The concept of small group or one-to-one tuition is an intervention that is well supported by evidence and welcomed by many schools, yet we know that the Government’s contractor, Randstad, has met only 10% of its targets for delivering this sort of tuition. I am surprised that when I challenged the Education Secretary in this Chamber a few weeks ago, when we were in the heat of omicron, on why we were not putting air purifiers into every school, he told me—as he told Sophie Raworth on “Sunday Morning”—that he is laser-focused on ensuring value for money. If Randstad is meeting only 10% of its target, I question whether that is value for taxpayers’ money. I particularly look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.
The national tutoring programme was particularly aimed at tackling the learning loss that has been felt most keenly by the most disadvantaged children. As the right hon. Member for Harlow said, all the evidence seems to be pointing to those children having been failed miserably. The National Audit Office questioned whether the programme is reaching the most disadvantaged, and the Education Policy Institute found a marked disparity in the take-up of the NTP between the north and the south. In the south, upwards of 96% of schools are engaging with the programme, compared with just 50% of schools in the north.
It has been reported that tutoring providers will no longer have to ensure that their catch-up reaches at least two thirds of poorer pupils after the target was ditched, even though this was stipulated as a key performance indicator in Randstad’s contract. How does this all fit with the Minister’s levelling-up ambitions?
The feedback from those on the ground trying to access the programme is damning. The leadership team of one academy trust told me they would give NTP a generous two out of 10. There are concerns that the tutoring partners strand is sucking teachers out of schools, and particularly the supply pool, which the Minister will know has come under significant pressure from omicron. Although all the restrictions have been eased, there are still staff and pupil absences in schools. There are many stories of lessons being cancelled at the last moment and tutors not turning up. Schools have had a mixed experience of the tutors with whom they are partnered.
The administrative complexity and burden have left many schools wondering about the value of opting into the programme. One teacher described the admin side as a farce, telling me, “There’s no way you’ll actually get paid if you try to put in honest information. It’s obvious no meaningful records are being kept. To get paid the first time, I had to do six hours of admin over a weekend. There appears to be no evaluation or feedback on what’s going on.”
With schools having to pay a contribution towards the school-led strand of NTP, how does that work for schools that are struggling financially given the huge disparities in school funding in different parts of the country? I know that at least two primary schools in Twickenham have a budget deficit. They lost fundraising  money during covid and were unable to claim for many of their additional covid costs. They rely on parental donations and parent teacher association fundraising for some of the basics, with one school having to ask parents for monthly donations to be able to employ teaching assistants. Many schools are having to fundraise to fork out thousands to switch to one of the Department for Education’s mandated phonics providers.
A DFE survey last year found that just 29% of schools are planning to use the NTP in the current academic year, with 30% being unsure. That statistic speaks for itself. The national tutoring programme, if not failing, is severely struggling. It is time for a fresh approach. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an ambitious package of support for our children and young people as we deal with the consequences of the pandemic. Sir Kevan Collins’s recommendation of £15 billion should be honoured, with the majority of that money being put directly into the hands of schools and a third going to parents and carers in the form of catch-up vouchers, as they are best placed to know what each individual young person needs, whether it is academic or social. That could include counselling support and so on.
The Education Policy Institute suggests that the economic impact of school closures during the pandemic could run into the trillions over the next few decades. A £15 billion investment in our young people would deliver a far greater return than most infrastructure projects.

Miriam Cates: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), with whom I agree about the impact of school closures. The biggest challenge facing our children is recovering from the pandemic. In the context of this debate, we are talking about lost learning in reading, writing and maths. My right hon. Friend has already spoken about the number of months—six, seven or eight—that some children are behind, but of course our children face a much wider issue, as they have lost social development and confidence, with many struggling with anxiety placed on them by adults over the course of the pandemic. These children have been forced to spend so much time online—six or seven hours a day—often unaccompanied, as they are doing work. Understandably, we have seen a rise in online harms and serious situations for many of our children. So there are huge challenges for our children at this point.
However, this debate is on the Department for Education’s spending, and I know the Minister will be relieved that I will focus my remarks on educational recovery. As has been mentioned, the Government’s flagship programme for academic recovery is the NTP, for which the plan is to deliver 100 million tutoring hours for five to 19-year-olds by 2024. I am pleased that it is a long-term strategy, acknowledging that we are not going to catch up overnight or even in one or two years. I understand that in the first year of the programme we have already launched 311,000 tutoring courses, and we are hoping to offer access to up to 2 million more this  year. I very much support this approach in principle, because I have no doubt that tutoring works and has the potential to turbocharge progress.
I have been both a classroom teacher and a private tutor, and I have to say that the roles are extremely different. A teacher who has 30 year 8s in their chemistry class and is trying to do a practical, where there are 30 Bunsen burners and perhaps some scalpels out—and perhaps some lads want to start a fire in the bin when they are not looking—is multitasking. They are prioritising children’s safety, trying to get them logistically to get the right equipment out and trying to keep to the lesson plan. Of course, they are making formal and informal assessments of what the children know, what progress they are making, who is not paying attention and who is not understanding, but they are very much focusing on bringing the class along as a whole as much as they can. Of course, they do not have that much time to invest in individual students who may be struggling, and their ability to know what each student is struggling with at any particular moment is limited. That is the role of a classroom teacher, and that is how it should be.
One-to-one tutoring is completely different—it is child-led. A good tutor can quickly establish the child’s strengths and weaknesses, and what they do and do not know. They can use intensive questioning to build a child’s knowledge and confidence. Tutoring is especially good for children with low confidence, who perhaps do not have the ability to contribute in a large class. So I have no doubt that a tutoring programme is a really positive way forward and could have truly transformational results. Of course, it also gives the opportunities to disadvantaged children that many advantaged children have been using for many years; private tutoring has become the staple of many middle-class educational aspirations. So the idea of being able to give disadvantaged children access to a truly transformational tool is a very positive development, and I applaud the Government’s decision to allocate resources to this. However, I agree that we need to look carefully at how this money is spent, whether this approach is working and whether we are getting value for money.
One issue we need to address is supply. There are not hundreds of skilled tutors in every part of the country ready to deliver this scheme. If there were, we would be in a completely different scenario. We have to hope that if this programme is going to run for a number of years, those skills will come, people will move into tutoring and they will become the supply we perhaps do not have now. We need to be careful, because tutoring is a skill and teaching is a skill. Just because someone has A-level maths, it does not mean they can tutor somebody for GCSE maths. The skills of teaching and the way of assessing a child’s knowledge are not something just anyone can do. We need to have skilled and trained practitioners.
Schools do not always need to look for external tutors. There are advantages in that approach, particularly for disadvantaged children in meeting new adults and learning to form new relationships, but for many schools the best thing will be to use internal providers and train up existing staff. So I welcome the £579 million for schools to develop localised, school-led tutoring provision, as that is an excellent option for schools. We need to be careful about small schools, which may not have the resource, personnel-wise, to allocate to that, but it is certainly a good development.
There are serious issues with Randstad, as we have heard on the Education Committee. The Government urgently need to reassess its ability to deliver the NTP, because if this is going to be our flagship programme and we are relying on it to deliver results on catching children up on academic education, we have to be sure that it is working and it is money well spent, and that in four or five years’ time we can look back and see that it has achieved results.
We also need to consider the fact that some schools would prefer to have their catch-up funding as a lump sum so that they can decide how best to spend it. They know what their children need most, and many will have more pressing concerns than academic catch-up, as we know from the evidence to the Select Committee about the wellbeing and mental health issues that many children face. There is some great practice out there. For example, Horizon Community College in Barnsley in my constituency appeared on the local news last week. It has set up a wellbeing centre and invited the charity Mind into the school. Children can drop into the wellbeing centre at any point; it is having a huge impact on the mental health of children at the school and they very much welcome it. There are some great examples of good practice out there, although it tends to be found among the bigger schools, which have bigger budgets so can be more flexible. Nevertheless, it is definitely something to learn from.
It is, of course, too soon to tell whether the national tutoring programme is working—it needs to run for longer—but evaluation is key and we have to find a way to assess it over time and, obviously, to make sure it works to start with. If the outcomes are good, I would like to see tutoring become an established part of our education system. It provides a brilliant opportunity to level up. There will of course be an element of trial and error to start with, but if we find a way to make it work, particularly for our most disadvantaged children but perhaps for those who show the most academic promise as well as those who are struggling, it could become a key part of our education strategy, so I very much welcome it.

Matt Vickers: We are talking about the big challenge of catch-up across the nation, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also about the vulnerability of young people? There is a complete contrast in the way people have been affected—for example, there were youngsters who did not have access to the internet at home or to an iPad. It is not a consistent catch-up programme for everybody because some did not have the tech and there were children with special educational needs and so on. It is all about empowering local leaders in local schools to deliver a tailor-made solution.

Miriam Cates: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I completely agree. All children have been affected by the pandemic—of course, certain demographics and ages have been affected more, but all children have suffered—so he is right that we need to give headteachers in particular the autonomy to decide how budgets are spent in their schools in the best interests of their children.
Let me move on to the adult education budget. We have had a chronic skills gap in this country for some time. The last census showed that in Stocksbridge in my constituency less than 50% of adults had a level 3 skill  or above. The fact that there are 1.3 million job vacancies in the UK shows that our population must have a skills gap. In England, just one in 10 adults has a technical qualification; in Germany, the proportion is one in five. We have clearly fallen behind many of our developed-nation competitors when it comes to skills, so I welcome the extra investment of £3.8 billion in further education and skills over this Parliament. The £1.6 billion for the national skills fund and the funding for the lifelong learning entitlement indicate a positive change of direction by this Government that will have a huge impact on levelling up and adult skills.
I wish to focus on a particular type of adult education provider. In my constituency we have Northern College, which is one of just four residential adult education colleges in the country. Its Wentworth Castle setting is amazingly inspirational. I do not know why they built it by the motorway—it is a bit noisy—but it is a fantastic setting: the grounds are managed by the National Trust and students have access to the best Italian staircase in Europe and the longest suspended ceiling. It is an amazing setting for adults who need a second chance at education, for whatever reason.
The college offers short and long course, GCSEs, A-levels, access courses, vocational qualifications, technical qualifications and higher education courses. The residential element is so important for people who need to step out of the normal run of their lives—perhaps they do not live in supportive households—and need the space to develop their learning skills. Many of the adults at Northern College, which I have visited a number of times, have been in prison or have been victims of domestic violence. For all sorts of reasons, they need an intensive second chance in education. The students themselves speak of the transformational impact of residential education on their lives, and the outcomes—in terms of people getting good jobs and staying in work for the rest of their lives—are truly outstanding.
Residential adult education colleges are a very small aspect of adult education provision—as I said, there are only four of them in the entire country—but they are really important. Some adults want to get another chance at education and to upskill, but if someone is 35 and has been in prison, is it really appropriate for them to go to their local further education college and sit with a load of 16-year-olds with completely different life experience and priorities? Northern College and the three other colleges across the country offer a unique and successful opportunity for people who need a second chance. I must mention the inspirational leadership of the principal of Northern College, Yultan Mellor, who has seen the college go from strength to strength to the point at which it is truly transforming lives.
I very much welcome the devolution of the adult education budget; it is a good step forward. Northern College is now jointly funded by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the South Yorkshire Combined Authority, which is an understandable move given that that is where the majority of students are drawn from. However, as a result of this devolution, the residential uplift—the element of funding that provides residential support to the adults who need it—is now under threat. That is a problem because there is good evidence to show that this period of intensive learning, with the counselling and the study skills support that is available for these adults, can be life changing. It is also the case  that Northern College is not just a local institution; it is a national provider, so there should be some sort of understanding that this residential uplift needs to continue.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is due to meet me and the principal shortly to talk about this matter, but may I ask Ministers urgently to take a decision on this uplift so that Northern College and the other three colleges can continue to be an important part of our national education strategy? I know that it is small, but it is key provision for many adults who would not otherwise have the access, the opportunity and the success in learning both academically and in skills.
I want to make two broader points about education spending. First, we must recognise the limits of our education system and what it can achieve. We often think that any issues or policies around children have to be fixed by our education system, particularly by our schools. Certainly the social demands on schools have increased in recent years. It is not just post pandemic, when, yes, children have regressed in terms of basic skills, but was an issue even before then. There are increased reports of children going to school without having been potty trained, and increased incidences of parents not being able to cope and needing the school’s support. We saw that particularly at the beginning of the pandemic when we realised how many families were completely reliant on schools not just for academic provision, but for the surrounding services that schools provide.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. She has talked about how important the tutoring programme could be if it works correctly. Does she not agree that attention needs to be paid not just to the tuition catch-up, but to mental health and wellbeing catch-up? As I highlighted a little bit in my speech, mental health referrals among young children have gone up enormously since lockdown.

Miriam Cates: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. If children are not in the emotional and mental state to be able to learn, all the tutoring in the world will not get them to the place where they need to be. We do have a crisis in child mental health. Lockdown is one reason for that, but there are other reasons, too. We should not fool ourselves that any amount of catch-up spending will solve this crisis in mental health.

Marcus Fysh: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of getting children in the right space to be able to learn well is about looking after them in the classroom, too? Even simple things such as making sure that they have had enough water to drink and that they get enough exercise during the day are a massively important part of that picture. It is not just about catch-up spending, but about how we treat them.

Miriam Cates: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We need to distinguish between wellbeing and serious mental issues. The vast majority of teachers and schools do an incredible job at looking after our children’s wellbeing. I know that my own children probably drink far more water at school than they do at home. There are also programmes such as a Mile a Day. Many  children in school also take part in regular mind exercises and mindfulness, which contribute to their wellbeing. However, some of the more sticky mental health issues cannot be easily solved by schools, which leads us into the wider issues. There has been a lack of effective family policy for many years now. There are severe financial pressures on many families not only because we have quite an unfavourable taxation system here, but because we have very high housing costs. There are financial pressures on families.

Matt Vickers: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that education is the answer to nearly every problem, including the impact on our local economy. In Teesside we have our fantastic new freeport with 18,000 jobs and now, thanks to devolved funding through the combined authority, the Tees Valley Mayor will hopefully be able to generate those skills among local people so we can take on those great jobs.

Miriam Cates: As a south Yorkshire MP, I grudgingly welcome my hon. Friend’s freeport, but I am afraid I do not agree that education is the answer to everything. It is incredibly valuable, and it is frustrating that the education budget has stalled while the health budget has exploded over recent years. That is an issue. However, I do not think education is the answer to everything.
Great education for everybody is clearly a target, but there are more important foundational issues, such as family life. Some of the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in her place, has shown that those first two years of life are crucial in determining the outcomes of the rest of someone’s life. Academic education plays very little role in those first two years, although development does.
We should recognise the importance of education, but we certainly should not expect our schools to solve every social issue in our country, especially the mental health crisis. We must be realistic about what education spending alone can achieve and not expect Ministers, the Department or schools to be able to solve those deep, structural social issues, which we must address, but which are not the subject of this debate.
We must also look at our overall education budget and how it is weighted across different stages of a child’s life. According to the House of Commons Library, our higher education spend is £11.6 billion a year, but our early years spend is £1.6 billion a year. To me, that seems back to front. When is the best time to invest in a child’s life? It is at the beginning, in the early years, when those foundations are being laid. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has said, 40% of the attainment gap that develops between the best-off and worst-off children develops by the age of two. I am not suggesting that we invert those two budgets, but we should certainly think about whether we should front-load our educational spend in the early years, when it could potentially have more impact.
We must also ask whether the higher education budget of £11.6 billion is money well spent. Some 50% of our young people now go to university, but five years after graduation 30% to 50% of graduates are in non-graduate jobs, and 77% never earn enough to repay their student loans. I welcome the recent reforms to make higher education spending fairer to the taxpayer and to students, but we need to go further. The cost to the taxpayer is  £11.6 billion—I think it is more when we add in the local authority contributions—but only half our young people see the benefit of that enormous taxpayer spending.
We should ask whether we should more fairly distribute that £11.6 billion or more. I welcome the move to spend more on technical and vocational education, but that is not a fraction of the expenditure on higher education. Imagine if the schools budget was spent on only half the population: it would be a deep inequality, but that is what is happening in our higher education budget.
Many of our universities are phenomenal, world-leading assets to this country, but we must ask whether the massive expansion we have seen in the sector in recent years is helpful to either individuals or society. I certainly cannot find any evidence of increased social mobility as a result of the massive increase in higher education spending. I welcome the direction the Government are moving in by raising the priority, the status and the budget of vocational and technical education, because that is important, but we must go further. If we are really going to level up education and the education budget, we must look at distributing the post-18 education spending far more fairly and equitably between academic, technical and vocational routes.

Marcus Fysh: Does my hon. Friend know about the wonderful work being done in Somerset around Yeovil College to bring forward new T-levels and different vocational education paths, which are making a huge difference to local businesses and providing local opportunities to develop those skills? It is amazing, and I thank the Minister for how much focus there has been on that. A central plank of my election pitch last time around was getting that skills development put at the heart of Government, and this work is absolutely delivering on that.

Miriam Cates: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not aware of what goes on in Somerset—it is quite a long way from South Yorkshire—but I agree that T-levels are a really important development. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and I recently met to discuss some of the amazing work that university technical colleges are doing to roll out T-levels. I do think that we are raising the status of technical education, which is key, because half the battle is getting middle-class parents to see that there are alternatives to university. I really welcome that change in direction, but I think we need to go further.
In conclusion, I welcome the national tutoring programme, which I think has the potential to be transformational, but there are some key questions about its deliverability. I welcome the increase in the adult education budget and applaud Ministers for some of their spending decisions. But we must go further. We need real reform of our post-18 education spending if we are really to level up.

Matt Western: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and, in particular, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing it and for his comprehensive dissection of what is happening across the education sector—I have a lot of respect for his experience and knowledge of it. I think his analysis of the catch-up programme was fairly damning, and I will come on to echo some of those points.
The right hon. Gentleman, among his many remarks, highlighted the percentage of teachers leaving the profession, which has to be really alarming for all of us. I speak to a great many teachers and headteachers, as I am sure all colleagues do, and I pick up a sense of disillusionment, frustration and exhaustion, and a sense of being undervalued by our society, and particularly by the Department for Education. The pay freezes have really taken their toll. So many teaching assistants are having to leave the profession because schools cannot afford them, which is placing great pressure on teachers, as we heard from the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
I also thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for her contribution. She was right to highlight the disappointing turnout by colleagues today, because this is a hugely important debate. I for one would have wanted to be on the Back Benches, had I been able to be so, because this is having a huge impact on all our communities, particularly on the next generation coming through. We should all be focused on what it means not only for our society and economy, but for those individuals. She also challenged the Government on their failings with the catch-up programme and rightly raised the issue of the shortage of teachers because the programme is sucking teachers out of supply pools.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, a former teacher, explaining just how tough it is for teachers right now. So many constituents are feeding back to me on how this is being felt throughout senior leadership teams, by governors and by all associated with schools, and on the impact it is having on the delivery of education for this generation.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge also spoke about early years and the need perhaps to reconsider priorities. I think the Government should take a long, hard look at what needs to be delivered for early years. I think that we are all in agreement. The right hon. Member for Harlow also highlighted the need for early years education and just how much of the formative education starts in those first five years. So much work has been done by academics and researchers about what that means for life chances in those first few months and years of a child’s life.
I remind the House of the context in which the national tutoring programme was launched. It was in response to the large-scale disruption to primary and secondary schools caused by the covid pandemic, and the Government were right to appoint the highly respected Sir Kevan Collins as their independent education recovery tsar. His recommendations were calculated and clear: if young people were to catch up on their missed schooling, that would require no less than a £15 billion investment in teachers, tutoring and an extended school day. Instead, the Government settled on just one tenth of that figure—a mere £1.4 billion or, to put it another way, little more than £22 per child—and were widely condemned as selling children short. Of course, Sir Kevan Collins resigned in protest.
The national tutoring programme should be a key pillar of the Department for Education’s offer to schoolchildren to allow them to catch up on lost learning, but it is not. From the outset, Ministers have sought to cut costs at the expense of prioritising the needs of children recovering from the disruption caused by the pandemic. Despite the DFE being allocated a budget of  £62 million for the national tutoring programme contract—not a huge amount in itself—it settled on a supplier that claimed it could deliver for less than half that budgeted figure. In fact, Randstad, a business specialising in human resources contracts, promised it could provide the contract for 40% of that figure—just £25 million. The reality is that it cannot deliver. It underpriced and underestimated what was needed. The fact that, as has been reported, Randstad undercut competitors by as much as £10 million should have rung alarm bells in the Department and for any procurement professional. Ministers have failed to get a grip on the scale of the challenge facing them, and both pupils and the taxpayer are being let down.
In January, the DFE released data acknowledging that the Minister’s flagship initiative for children in England has reached only 10% of its pupil engagement target a third of the way through the school year. This is serious. To put those percentages into absolute numbers, a mere 52,000 pupils out of the 524,000 who are due to receive tutoring this year have received it. These are the real-life consequences of this Government’s decision to spend a mere £1.4 billion on catch-up, far short of the £15 billion that Sir Kevan Collins said was needed. This is education on the cheap, and it is failing young people. Given the scale of this challenge and the time that the Government have had since the start of the pandemic to get this right, this admission is as shocking as it is damning. Can the Minister therefore update the House on how many pupils have been reached as of this month?

Robin Walker: I would not want the hon. Gentleman inadvertently to mislead the House about the so-called 10% figure. Across the three strands, more than 300,000 pupils were reached even under those figures, which refer to the first term of the programme in this academic year, compared with the 300,000 who were reached over the whole of the previous academic year. I will provide an update in my speech, and we will come forward with further figures in due course, but it is important to recognise that as many students have received tuition under the national tutoring programme in the first term of this academic year as in the whole of the first year of the programme. We want to build on that and deliver the 2 million sessions that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) referred to.

Matt Western: I thank the Minister for that point, but as I understand it from the reports in Schools Week that have been referenced by colleagues in the Chamber, there is a significant shortfall against the target. I think everyone is agreed on that. Given that the Minister has himself conceded that the Government need to keep doing better and that they still have work to do, can he really say that he has confidence that Randstad will hit its targets when, as I said a moment ago, I have it that Randstad has hit only 10% of its target a third of the way through the year? I would be interested to know just how often the Minister reviews the contract with Randstad and how often he is holding its feet to the fire over its failures. Is it weekly or monthly that the Department is getting reporting? If so, why has it not moved more quickly?
Given that it is widely accepted that the impact of the pandemic fell disproportionately on the shoulders of pupils on free school meals and those designated as benefiting from pupil premium, the priority could not be clearer, yet that is also the very group that has been most let down by Randstad. Just last week, Randstad sent emails to tutoring providers suggesting that they were
“no longer required to ensure 65% of their tuition support is provided to children receiving pupil premium.”
Can the Minister confirm specifically whether this approach was authorised by his Department? In a joint letter published by seven tutoring providers, they damningly conclude that abandoning the target will
“only serve to widen the attainment gap”.
I think that point was referenced by the right hon. Member for Harlow.
This Government evidently have no intention of guaranteeing education recovery support for those who need it most. To compound that failure, Randstad is refusing to share data with the Education Committee on the number of pupils receiving free school meals who have been reached. Indeed, calls by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) to publish a regional breakdown of delivery have gone unanswered, although I heard some reference to them from the right hon. Member for Harlow. Can the Minister confirm whether he has regional data? If so, will he publish it as a matter of urgency? It is not just me asking; I am sure all diligent Members, who may not be here today, would want to see that information. It is vital that we know what is happening in our constituencies in this area, which is one of the most critical elements of the impact of the pandemic.
That also speaks to a wider point about the contractual arrangements underpinning the national tutoring programme. In my life before becoming the Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington, I worked in the commercial sector, regularly dealing with contracts and suppliers. It is why this contract strikes me as particularly one-sided, and it further demonstrates the Government’s failure to use public money wisely. That is something we witnessed throughout the pandemic, whether on Test and Trace or suppliers of contracts for personal protective equipment.
Incredibly, the contract can be cancelled by the Government only for website failures, and not for the quality of the teaching and tutoring. By negotiating only three key performance indicators upon which the Department can rely to trigger a swift termination of the contract—none of which concern the quality or availability of the tutoring itself—the Department has prioritised websites over children’s learning. On top of that, recent reports show that Randstad’s chaotic management means tutors are turning up to empty classrooms due to confusion over targets, yet they are still being paid. Teaching empty classrooms is hardly good value for public money and hardly in the interests of the pupils who are most in need of catch-up tutoring.
Indeed, when the Government outlined their national tutoring programme, my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) set out Labour’s bold alternative proposals. Labour’s children’s recovery plan would have delivered small group tutoring for all who need it and continued professional development for teachers to support  pupils to catch up on lost learning. In addition, we would have set up catch-up breakfast clubs and extracurricular activities, providing up to 1.5 billion free healthy breakfasts a year to help children bounce back from the pandemic. We would have ensured that there was quality mental health support in every school and small group tutoring for all children who needed it. It is a real missed opportunity that Ministers did not listen to my hon. Friends and work with them for the benefit of school children across this country. A generation already scarred by real-term Government cuts to school budgets during the past 12 years is being further disadvantaged by this Conservative Government.
Unfortunately, the Government’s record on adult education is similarly dismal. Whatever they may promise in the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, their actions speak louder than words. The simple truth is that, since 2010, successive Governments have flattened opportunities—a far cry from the claim to be levelling up—by slashing further education funding by one third and the adult education budget by half. More recently, the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s decision to claw back unused adult skills funds from colleges and local authorities if they missed their 2020-21 targets by more than 10% destabilised the sector—a point that the principal of Warwickshire College Group emphasised to me. With 45% of colleges already experiencing financial difficulties prior to the pandemic, that policy only added to the uncertainty and instability in the sector. The effect was scarring, as I am sure the Minister is well aware given the closure of Malvern Hills College, part of Warwickshire College Group, in his neighbouring constituency of West Worcestershire.
With the financial sustainability of FE institutions eroded and many FE lecturers able to secure a higher wage in the private sector or in the school system, where wages are on average £9,000 higher, the Government’s action, or lack thereof, on adult education clearly does not match their rhetoric. Despite many college students, apprentices and learners being adversely affected by the pandemic, Ministers allocated funds only to hold small-group tutoring for the most disadvantaged students aged 16 to 19, with no one-to-one support. When that funding was announced, the Association of Colleges said:
“the failure to fund additional teaching hours or to extend the pupil premium to age 18 means that many disadvantaged students may fall through the gaps.”
Again, the Opposition proposed a solution in our further education recovery premium, which would have extended existing tutoring support in further education to assist those students who most needed support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) has said repeatedly in this House, more than £2 billion in unspent apprenticeship levy funds have been sent back to the Treasury instead of being used to transform the life chances of our young people. We would use the levy funds to create 100,000 new apprenticeships to offer young people the first rung on the ladder to a high-quality job. With our £250-million green transformation fund, sustainable and green skilled jobs would be at the forefront of the skills agenda.
We would also invest in today’s schoolchildren to ensure that they are aware of the wide range of opportunities open to them and that they can make informed decisions about their futures. Every school  child would have access to face-to-face professional careers guidance and two weeks of compulsory work experience. In spite of the Minister’s rhetoric about the importance of careers guidance, Conservative Members chose to vote against our plans to ensure that every child leaves school job-ready and work-ready.
We have heard some fine words, but the Government cannot walk or talk themselves away from their record. As the Minister said, they need to do better—900% better—and there is still work to be done. It is clear that the Opposition are putting forward sensible, costed solutions that would tackle the real issues facing our education system, while the Government appear to dither, delay and indeed move the goalposts. We cannot have a contractor changing its own targets—perhaps the Minister will clarify that—but that is what the Government are allowing to happen. That contract costs the Government just £25 million as part of their £1.4-billion catch-up plan, but it is costing young people, our society and our economy dearly and it is failing children, particularly the most deprived and the most needy, everywhere.

Robin Walker: First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for opening this very important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss my Department’s plans for addressing the immediate and longer term challenges facing young people and adults in education.
I find myself in a rare moment of agreement with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) in my surprise that the Back Benches, certainly on the Opposition side of the House, were so empty during this debate. Her party brought in at least two Members throughout the entirety of the debate, but the Labour Benches have been strangely unpopulated for most of it. However, that has provided the opportunity for some really excellent speeches by members of the Education Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates)—and I listened carefully to the points they made.
Since the then Minister for School Standards led a debate on the main estimates in July last year, our pupils, students and staff in educational institutions have gone through more disruption and distress, and now face a different environment as we begin to live with covid. During this period, teachers and other educational professionals have continued to show extraordinary commitment and dedication, and I echo the thanks of the Chair of the Select Committee to everybody who works in the sector. I know that people in all our schools up and down the country have done a phenomenal job in supporting the education of young people and continue to do so.
The Secretary of State has set out his priorities of schools, skills and families, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is right to challenge us to include social justice in that list. Given his focus in this debate, I want to talk about our focus on disadvantaged pupils and the important work of the national tutoring programme before moving on to talk about adult education. First, though, I will set out, as I believe I am supposed to do in these debates, the overall funding picture.
In 2021-22, the Department for Education resource budget is around £82 billion. While there is a small decrease since the beginning of the financial year, as the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out, this relates primarily to an accounting movement driven by a decrease in the impairment to the student loan book, which itself is driven by macroeconomic factors. Of the £82 billion, £60.2 billion is for estimate lines relating to early years and schools, and £20.3 billion for estimate lines relating primarily to post-16 and skills. Overall, in 2021-22 the Department is targeting about £10 billion of funding to supporting additional needs and disadvantaged pupils in schools, including through the pupil premium and our education recovery programmes.
I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and all those present that we continue to look for ways to tilt our policies towards disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils in our schools and colleges. As well as the £2.5 billion pupil premium and the £1 billion recovery premium both focusing on disadvantaged pupils, we are mindful of other pupil groups whose circumstances make academic success a greater challenge. I am looking forward to giving evidence on the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller population to my right hon. Friend and his Select Committee, which I know is carrying out an inquiry on that issue.
Following the 2019 children in need review, we have invested significantly to support the outcomes of children with a social worker. For example, last year we extended the role of virtual school heads to ensure that every child with a social worker has a local champion. For the past two years, we have funded research to test what works best in improving their educational outcomes. From September 2021, school designated safeguarding leads have a greater focus on improving the educational outcomes of children with a social worker, and we recently made changes to the school admissions code to ensure that the fair access protocol prioritises children who have been subject to a child in need plan or a child protection plan in the last 12 months.
For those who have left the care system, local authorities have a legal duty to support care leavers to engage in education, employment or training, including by appointing a personal adviser to help with the transition to independence. Care leavers studying in further education are a priority group for the 16-to-19 bursary of £1,200 a year. Incentives are in place for employers that recruit care leaver apprentices. The Government meet all training costs for young people aged 16 and 17, and this has been extended to the age of 25 for care leavers.[Official Report, 18 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 11MC.] Employers can claim an additional £1,000 for every care leaver, in recognition of the additional support they may need, and in 2018 we introduced a £1,000 bursary for care leavers starting an apprenticeship. We have published guidance to universities highlighting the areas where care leavers may need extra support, with examples of effective practice from across the sector. Many universities have now signed the care leaver covenant and published an offer for care leavers, and we provide a £2,000 bursary for each care leaver who goes to university.
We have all witnessed the impact on pupils, students and staff of school absence through illness or self-isolation. One of my Department’s clear priorities is the return of ordered school life and the recovery of lost academic ground, so I shall start my overview with the catch-up  funding we have made available to all schools, directed to highly effective activities, and the tutoring revolution we have launched across all parts of England for pupils aged 5 to 16.
The recovery premium, a grant to all state schools in England for this and the next two years, is additional funding worth over £1.3 billion to help schools to deliver evidence-based approaches to support education recovery. We know that disadvantaged pupils have been hardest hit, and it is right that our recovery funding prioritises those who need it most. The recovery premium is therefore based on pupil premium eligibility to ensure that schools with the highest numbers of disadvantaged pupils receive the largest amounts. School leaders are encouraged to use the funding to address their disadvantaged pupils’ specific needs using proven practice, and those requirements are reflected in the grant conditions for the pupil premium. We have protected the pupil premium per pupil grant, and schools are sharing £2.5 billion this year, allocated according to the number of disadvantaged pupils on their rolls. School leaders have a lot of choice about how the grant is spent, but it should be on proven approaches that evidence shows make a real difference to disadvantaged pupils.
As we have heard from across the House, there is good evidence that small group tutoring works to accelerate pupils’ progress. Last year, in its first year, the national tutoring programme launched more than 300,000 tutoring courses. Feedback from schools and pupils was almost unanimous that the programme made a real difference. Given the size of the challenge, our ambition grew for this year, and we aim to supply up to 2 million high-quality tuition courses. We listened to schools’ reflections on the initial year and introduced a new option—school-led tutoring—in September 2021, to complement the tuition partner and academic mentor options.
The £579 million grant, calculated from the number of disadvantaged pupils on roll, enables school leaders to arrange subsidised tutoring themselves using existing staff who are well informed about their pupils and already known to them. That new approach has flourished. The figures we published in January for the autumn term showed an estimated 230,000 courses started by pupils through school-led tutoring, which was far ahead of the expected uptake. When added to more than 70,000 courses started with tuition partners and academic mentors, and last year’s 300,000 courses, it means that more than 600,000 pupils have started to receive tuition since 2020. A school survey suggested that 71% of responding schools felt the tutoring is benefiting academic progress, and 80% felt that it is improving pupils’ confidence.
I greatly enjoyed seeing tutoring in action through different models during my visits to Burnopfield Primary School in County Durham, which was employing an academic mentor, and Dunton Green Primary School in Kent, which was working on the school-led route and where pupils and staff were enthusiastic about the fresh approach to recovering lost education. The Department will be publishing the latest participation data shortly to update the House, the Education Committee, and the public about the progress being made. I have heard loud and clear the calls for more regional data to be available, and I am determined that we get that out at the earliest opportunity.
It was great to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge about her personal  experience of teaching and tutoring, and her support for the ambition of reaching 2 million pupils over the course of this year. Although I acknowledge that take-up has been slow in parts of the programme, this Department listens to the schools it serves. Continuous improvement is built into our operation. My officials are working with our delivery partner, Randstad, to address challenges that have arisen this year. Schools continue energetically to employ academic mentors, for whom there is a healthy order book, and tuition partners continue to recruit new schools. We continue to listen to both schools and those delivering the tutoring. Last month we brought together tutoring organisations for a national workshop, and the Secretary of State and I recently met a group of the programme’s tuition partners, to hear their experiences of delivering the programme.
Overall, the programme is on track to deliver its objectives for this year. We constantly review the effectiveness of our policy delivery, making in-year adjustments to ensure that as many pupils as possible benefit from tutoring. That flexibility means that we do not anticipate a notable underspend at the end of the year. The Secretary of State and I have regularly been meeting Randstad, and our officials continue to monitor its performance on a weekly basis.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has raised many times using underspend from the tutoring programme to address the hugely important issue of attendance. That is a shared priority, and I totally understand his determination to consider that issue, as well as the strong case that has been made for attendance mentoring. I am keen that we explore and consider that, but I do not think it right to cannibalise tutoring funding to do it. I want to ensure that we find other ways of addressing that issue.
A question has been raised about the target for disadvantaged children within the national tutoring programme. I want to be clear that the 65% pupil premium target is not being removed, and the Department and Randstad remain committed to that target across the tuition partners pillar. Some flexibility was introduced for individual tutoring organisations so that schools and pupils did not miss out on valuable tutoring. They were encouraged to look at whether they could move ahead with providing tuition courses to individual schools without having to set that particular target within every single school. I appreciate that the communication of that did not necessarily come across as it should. It is important that we correct the record to be clear that the 65% target still stands and is an important part of how we are targeting this across the system. We are looking at how we can further improve the national tutoring programme for next year and will announce our plans in due course.
My hope and expectation is that more schools and tutoring organisations will get behind this concerted drive to tackle lost education. I look to all hon. Members present and colleagues across the country to champion this unique opportunity for schools in their constituencies. Together, we can ensure that the tutoring revolution delivers its benefits to every pupil who needs it and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, it becomes an established part of the education system.

Munira Wilson: The Minister referenced the various funding announcements for the national tutoring programme, but the House of Commons Library briefing says today:
“It is not clear how much has been spent on the NTP so far.”
For the record, can he clarify exactly how much has been spent to date and on the three individual strands: the school-led, tutor-led and mentoring parts of the NTP?

Robin Walker: I do not have those figures to hand, but it is important to state, as in a number of debates, it has been suggested that there will be a major underspend in the programme, that I do not necessarily anticipate that to be the case. I think that we can spend the money and do so effectively, and part of the reason for that is the flexibilities we have introduced to ensure that this can be delivered across all three strands of the programme.
I turn to adult education. My ambition for schools is matched by that of my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for adult education. That ambition is backed by our investment of £3.8 billion more in further education and skills over the course of this Parliament.
Apprenticeships are more important than ever in helping businesses to recruit the right people and develop the skills that they need. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for his work over a long period to raise the profile and esteem of apprenticeships. We are increasing apprenticeships funding, which will grow to £2.7 billion by 2024-25, and we have already seen more than 164,000 starts in the first quarter of the academic year, which is roughly a third—34%—higher than in the same period in 2020-21 and 5% higher than in 2019-20, before the pandemic.[Official Report, 18 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 11MC.] We encourage people of all ages to consider apprenticeships. There is now more choice than ever before, with 640 high-quality standards across a range of sectors.
I note my right hon. Friend’s interest in and continuing passion for teacher apprenticeships and agree that apprenticeships should give a route into a range of professions. I am assured that there is a range of apprenticeships in education, including a level 6 teaching apprenticeship. But we should continue to look at this area while of course maintaining the esteem of teaching being a graduate profession. His suggestion is absolutely in line with that.
I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) had to leave the debate earlier than we might have anticipated. She has been passionate about advocating the importance of apprenticeships for the early years. She has done fascinating work in that space in championing the value not only of the early years but of its workforce. I was pleased that, at the spending review, the Chancellor announced a £300 million package to transform services for parents, carers, babies and children in half of local authorities in England. That includes £10 million for trials of innovative workforce models in a smaller number of areas to test approaches to support available to new parents. With that work, we can look at some of the areas she has championed such as early years mental health support, breastfeeding support and the early years development workforce as potential areas for the development of new apprenticeship standards.
We are also supporting the largest expansion of our traineeship programme to ensure more young people can progress to an apprenticeship or work. We are funding up to 72,000 traineeship places over the next three years. As part of our post-16 reforms, as set out in the skills for jobs White Paper, employer-led local skills improvement plans will be rolled out across England. Those will help to ensure that learners are able to develop the critical skills that will enable them to get a well-paid and secure job, no matter where they live.

Sarah Owen: Before I go any further, I want to declare an interest as somebody who used to help to deliver union learning in workplaces across the country, so I know that access to in-work, lifelong learning has the power to transform lives. Does the Minister accept that the decision to axe the union learning fund undermines any warm words about skills, further education and in-work learning?

Robin Walker: I do not accept that. Some valuable education was provided by Unionlearn, but the Department has to make sure that it is delivering skills in the most effective way. I am sure that the Minister responsible for skills, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), can speak for himself about decisions that have been taken in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge spoke very passionately about the role of Northern College in Barnsley and the support that it gets from the combined authority. I know that she is due to meet the skills Minister shortly and he will no doubt be able to come back to her on the residential uplift.
The Government are investing £2.5 billion in the national skills fund. That includes investment of up to £550 million to significantly expand skills boot camps and to expand the eligibility for delivery of the free courses for jobs offer. We know that improving numeracy skills can have a transformative effect, unlocking employment and learning opportunities. That is why we are allocating up to £559 million over the spending review period for our national numeracy programme, Multiply, which is launching this year. But that is not all. Many people need more flexible access to courses, helping them to train, upskill or retrain alongside work, family and personal commitments. That is why the lifelong loan entitlement will be introduced from 2025, providing individuals with a loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime.
I recognise the passion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for careers advice and he continues to press the case for more episodes of careers engagement at school. I have seen some fantastic examples of that, including apprentices coming into sixth-form colleges to talk about the value of what they do, but we share his aspiration in that sense.
In conclusion, the national tutoring programme and our work to reform adult education share a core mission: to help those falling behind and to provide the framework for as many individuals as possible to reach their potential, regardless of their stage of life or location. I am proud of what the Government are doing to deliver that. We will continue to target investment at changes that will make the most difference, and I unreservedly commend this estimate to the House.

Nigel Evans: The last word goes to the mover of the motion, Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: I will go in order through the Members who spoke. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who I hugely respect, was on the frontline in trying to keep schools open for most pupils during lockdown, alongside me and many other Members. She made the problems with the catch-up programme very clear, which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and the Front Benchers reflected on. There is a cross-party view that the catch-up programme, as it is, may not be fit for purpose, particularly the Randstad part of it. As I said, I urge the Government to look at that, and I am encouraged by what the Minister said.
My fellow Education Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, talked powerfully not just about the catch-up programme, but about skills. What she said about universities is absolutely right. We have had a mantra in this country of university, university, university when it should have been skills, skills, skills. There has been an imbalance and I welcome the moves that the Government are making to change that. That was an important point and I am glad that she mentioned the statistics relating to Germany’s much more vocational education.
I thank the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for his kind remarks. He was right to highlight the problems with Randstad. He talked about breakfast clubs. Again, I am not asking for more money, but, if the Government were to use just £75 million of the £340 million raised from the sugar levy, that could reach 50% of the most disadvantaged pupils and expand the existing breakfast provision. That is quite important.
I welcome what the Minister said, particularly about the weekly meetings with Randstad and trying to get the catch-up programme working properly. It is important to acknowledge that the overall amount for the tuition programme is £5 billion, not just £1.8 billion. That is a sizeable sum of money in this economic climate. I do not mind at all where the Minister gets the money from for the “ghost children”, but we have to get those 100,000 kids back to school. If there is no underspend, that is fine, but it has to be a proper priority for the Government and there needs to be a serious effort and plan. I am glad that the Minister has explained about the target of 65% of disadvantaged children.
Finally, I do not understand why teaching degree apprentices still have to be graduates. We allow policing degree apprentices and nursing degree apprentices who have not been to university first, so why not teaching degree apprentices?
As I said in the closing remarks of my speech, we need a long-term plan. The Ministry of Defence has a strategic review; the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care have a long-term plan for health and a funding settlement. If we had the same in education, a lot of the problems that we have talked about today could perhaps be better solved.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Nigel Evans: I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022. The Ayes were 305 and the Noes were two, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022, for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £7,167,368,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1152, and
(2) the resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £67,644,000 as so set out.—(Jeremy Quin.)

John Spellar: I rise to speak as Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate. May I pass on the apologies of the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has had a minor operation this week? As we know, he has very strong views on our defence capacity and would probably have wished to express them fairly vociferously in this debate. The defence estimates cover a vast range of work, but I will need to compress my remarks to 10 to 15 minutes to allow other contributions.
This is a dramatic time for defence issues. The agony of Ukraine intensifies, as President Zelensky’s powerful address to us yesterday made clear. The crisis has, of course, been building for a number of years, as Russia has launched successive cyber-attack warfare in the Baltic states and kinetic warfare in Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas. It has now exploded dramatically and tragically in Ukraine. We declare our solidarity with the country, the people and the military forces of Ukraine.
How are we in the UK to react to the dramatic shift in international security relations? Clearly, our Government and Parliament now have to give an urgent and positive response to the long-standing demands of our Defence Committee that we must move towards 3% of GDP for defence spending. The Budget in just over two weeks’ time has to respond positively to that imperative. Colleagues on both sides of the House will speak about detailed aspects of the consequential changes to personnel and to equipment, not least reversing the proposed reduction in numbers of the Army. To leave them sufficient time, I will focus on the broader context.

Bob Stewart: I thank the right hon. Member, my friend, for giving way. Surely one of the lessons of what we have seen in Ukraine is that a small group of utterly determined trained, or indeed untrained, men and women can use small arms and anti-tank weapons and stop a hugely bigger force. We are therefore just in time to reverse some of the decisions in the integrated review, such as scrapping 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, an infantry battalion that proved its worth in 2009 hugely gallantly.

John Spellar: I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention—I think he should have declared an interest. He is absolutely right; the defence estimates and the Budget need to reflect the new reality.
I want to concentrate on the broader context: the ideological battle that is taking place, and the institutional shake-up that is consequently required. Most crucially, we have to recognise the full-spectrum approach of our opponents. Commentators in the west often gabble glibly about hybrid warfare, but in the framework of cyber  war as an alternative to kinetic capability, and often in a mechanistic way, rather than understanding the political context and the need for whole-of-society resilience.
The Soviet mindset, of which we are now seeing a resurgence, is quite different. For these people, politics—politik—is everything. All agencies of the state are engaged. For too long we have ignored the multidimensional attack on our society, but that is a luxury we can no longer afford. This also means that the integrated defence review has, to an extent, disintegrated, and requires a major revamp which should start immediately. This necessary intellectual rethink must now focus primarily on state-on-state conflict.
Over many years, I have posed a question a number of times to military figures, defence officials and academics. During the cold war, we based our defence and security posture on our assessment of “the Threat”, with a capital T, and I have asked what the Threat is today. Invariably, I receive the answer that we face a variety of threats, but that is not the right answer, because the question is “What is the existential threat to our nation and society?” It is not terrorism, Islamist or otherwise, ugly and vile though that is. Today we—the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe, and indeed the west more widely—know the answer. It is a revanchist Russia and its desire to re-establish the Soviet territory, although I accept that in the longer term, as the defence review states, a revisionist China may be a more significant challenge. That means that today’s estimates are fundamentally an historical document, as, indeed, is the review.
That is not just down to the violently aggressive attacks by Putin’s Russia, but is also, thankfully, a result of the vigorous response not only from NATO allies but from formally neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland, where for the first time there is a public majority favouring NATO membership. The most seismic public reaction has been in Germany, where the new Social Democratic party Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has rewritten decades of German policy of both parties in his historic speech to the Bundestag. Equally dramatic was the wide political support, including support from the German Greens.
Chancellor Scholz stated clearly that President Putin had created a new reality which required an unequivocal response and a dramatic shift to supply Ukraine with weapons. He also made it clear that making international solidarity possible required new, strong capabilities. Essentially, that means that Germany must invest more in the security of the country. He addressed the readiness crisis in the Bundeswehr, which has been widely publicised and has featured in discussions we have had with our German counterparts. He stressed the need for aeroplanes that can fly, ships that can set out to sea, and soldiers who are optimally equipped for their mission. He has designated a one-off sum of €100 billion to set up a special fund, and has pledged an annual 2% of GDP.
I suggest to the Minister—I should welcome his observations—that we may also need to revise the ideological decision made by his Government, although not by current Ministers, to abandon our bases in Germany. I do not think the indication that we might make some minor return meets the need presented by the current challenge.
This was an imaginative, bold and historic intervention. Scholz clearly, in Bismarck’s phrase, heard God’s footsteps marching through history, and managed to catch on to His coattails as He marched past. I hope that our Ministers see the significance of that intervention, and engage rapidly and deeply with our German colleagues to build on this new reality. I hope they will also engage with our own defence industry. The Financial Times reports that after Scholz’s speech on the Sunday, on the Monday the German Defence Ministry and defence firms were engaged in detailed discussions as to how to ramp up production. The MOD and ADS should take note, because that is the sort of national response that we need. I was talking with the industry yesterday, and this does not appear to have happened, particularly not in the supply chain, which is wondering where it fits into the changed environment.

Kevan Jones: But this has been happening for many years. These are political decisions that have been taken, and nearly 30% of our procurement is now bought off the shelf from the United States, with no commitment from companies such as Boeing to reinvest to ensure that not only jobs but technology stay in the UK.

John Spellar: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital to have a well-established industry to be able to respond to a crisis. The Ministry of Defence and the Treasury need to break out of the ideological straitjacket that states that domestic industry does not matter and we can buy from anywhere in the world. That is a hugely important change.

Jeremy Quin: In fairness, I must draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention back to the DSIS—the defence security industrial strategy—in which we fundamentally changed our process of procurement. We have a new partnership with British industry, and in discussions with them over the last few days they have been extremely forward looking, as I know he would wish.

John Spellar: I would welcome a bit more detail from the Minister as to the nature and engagement of those discussions. I was talking to a representative from the industry only yesterday, and they are seeing precious little coming through. It is not happening in any way on the same scale or intensity as in Germany. We could argue that Germany is doing some catch-up, but it is really engaging with its industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, we give away huge orders and get little or nothing in return. Even now, the Minister’s own Department refuses to commit to building the fleet solid support ships in the UK, and his colleagues in the Home Office are giving an order for new Border Force vessels to a shipyard in Holland.

Kevan Jones: It is worse than that. The Department used to hide behind European regulations, but now we are out of the European Union, we should be free to procure in the UK. I challenged the Minister before Christmas as to whether his Department was going to give a £10 million contract to Damen in the Netherlands for a special naval vehicle, and he said we should wait for the competition. Lo and behold, this week it has been announced that Damen has won that contract for a vessel that could have been built in this country.

John Spellar: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we look forward to the Minister trying to give an explanation for that. My right hon. Friend mentions EU regulations. The reality was that no other country in Europe behaved like that, but that was one of the drivers for the British public thinking that the EU was not working in their interests. Had we actually behaved like every other European country, there would have been less anger in this country. Now the Government are claiming that they are bound by World Trade Organisation regulations, but the United States is a long-standing member—indeed, a founder—of the WTO, and it has a “buy American” policy. There is a deep ideology in the civil service, and unfortunately Ministers are afraid to confront it.

Jamie Stone: The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. He refers to countries that are thinking about joining NATO, such as Finland and Sweden, and there has been a sea change, as he says, in those countries and in Germany. I am a great believer in the British public, and I bet that every single Member here today is getting the same message that I have been getting way up at the top of the UK, which is that we need to defend ourselves against the bear, and against the threat. I believe that the public would warmly support us if we decided to reverse the dreadful cut in the size of the British Army. I think that that would give a great deal of strength to the Government’s elbow.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will see that come through in my speech.
I hope this will, if not eliminate, at least reduce the facile attacks on our defence industry and its skilled, unionised workforce. Can we have no more ill-informed pressure on the City and pension funds to disinvest in defence firms, and no more blockades of their factories?
Likewise, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence cannot be mere observers. They have to engage, and the Treasury has to provide the funding to enable that engagement to be meaningful. They should follow the example of the great Ernie Bevin, who coincidentally was born on this day in 1881. He had the strategic genius to create not only the biggest trade union in the country, if not the world, but the NATO alliance. Furthermore, when American Secretary of State George Marshall gave his speech at Harvard in 1947, Bevin seized on a single sentence:
“The initiative, I think, must come from Europe.”
Through his energy and persuasion, Bevin generated a European response of sufficient weight and urgency to Marshall’s implied offer of American support, and the reconstruction of Europe followed thereafter.
Incidentally, Bevin also saw the need to create the Foreign Office’s Information Research Department to engage in the battle of ideas and the battle to counter disinformation—that is a crucial part of the spectrum—not only in the UK but across Europe. Also engaged in that struggle of democracy versus totalitarianism were leading Labour figures in the IRD Denis Healey and Richard Crossman, who had of course also played a prominent role in the wartime Political Warfare Executive. This cause is currently being championed in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly by its president, US Congressman Gerry Connolly, to put at its heart the democratic values on which NATO was founded.
Now we have to make our defence and security architecture fit for purpose for this existential struggle. Some of that is about recreating past capability and restoring our vandalised capacity for watching and understanding the dynamics of the Russian regime and, indeed, of Ukraine —the neglect of that after the fall of the Berlin wall was a scandal—and some of it is about recognising the relentless political nature of this struggle and funding organisations with multiple skills to wage it, while fully integrating our capacity.
I find it unusual, if not extraordinary, that the Chief of the Defence Staff and the heads of the intelligence agencies attend the National Security Council only as and when. Resources are crucial—that is what this debate is about—but mindset and doctrine are also vital.

Mark Francois: The right hon. Gentleman and I are both former Armed Forces Ministers. I have sat on the Defence Committee for five years, and he has served far longer than me and is now our excellent vice-Chairman. He can attest to the fact that the Committee has been warning about the increasing Russian threat for several years. Some of us were derided as hawks who always said the Russians were coming. Well, the Russians have now well and truly turned up, so the Committee was basically right. Does he agree that we must now review the entire integrated review, because what happened two weeks ago was a complete game changer in security terms?

John Spellar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his interventions not just in the Chamber but in the Defence Committee on these important issues. This is pertinent to a debate on the estimates, because resources and finances are obviously crucial, but it is the doctrine, the mindset and the organisation that decide the outcome. It is the same in Ukraine, where the morale of the Ukrainian forces, who are fighting for their homeland, is crucial when facing a conscript army who are not sure where they are or why they are there. That is why we have to get this right. We need an increase in the Budget in a couple of weeks’ time, but we also need a reset in our thinking.

Rachael Maskell: When I tabled a written question asking whether there needed to be such a review, I received a complacent answer from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), saying that everything is all right and that we are meeting the current requirements. That answer came on 4 March, after this conflict had begun. There needs to be a review of our mindset to build up the security of our country, rather than just defending the Government’s position.

John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that. This very much shows that a week in politics can be a very long time, but it also reveals, as she rightly says, a complacency about our situation and about the international situation, which was not justified by events.
In conclusion, what we have to question today is: is there the necessary understanding in the Government of the tasks and indeed the opportunities confronting them? Are they willing to rethink and provide the funds to implement urgent and necessary charge? Bevin understood this and seized the moment, and Prime Minister Attlee backed him to the hilt. So the fundamental question today is: are this Prime Minister, the current crop of Ministers and our dysfunctional civil service up for the challenge or even up to the job?

Johnny Mercer: Thank you for calling me early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to start by talking about a couple of the points mentioned by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), which I completely agree with, on mindset and attitude towards defence. He was nuanced and careful on that. As everybody knows, I have campaigned on defence issues for a long time. I am no expert on procurement and I pay tribute to this Minister, whom I worked alongside when I was a Minister, for his attitude towards it. I have found that there has been a significant step change there. When it comes to finance and investment the figures are undeniable and show that over about 50 years, roughly through to the 2020s, there was a decline in investment in defence, by Governments of all colours—we have seen that across the pitch. As this Prime Minister keeps mentioning, we have seen small increases between 2020 and 2022, and the projected increases as well, but I really want to get across to Members here today and to other Members that these increases are in CDEL—capital departmental expenditure limits. The problem with that is that our RDEL—resource departmental expenditure limits—which is our spending on people, continues either to flatline or decline. That means that the experience of those serving in the military continues to go down. Despite valiant work by lots of people to try to improve it, the reality is that if we continue to ask our people to do more and more with less and less, that affects the experience and the “elastic band” in the middle that is taken up by people who do it because they are patriots and believe in defence, as many Members of this House do. That is fine, but they get worn out and are then pushed into society, and a new group comes in. If we continue to have that mindset—that we can burn these people out because new ones will come in—we will see a degradation of defence capability, which we have seen, and we will end up with an integrated review such as we saw.
I thought some aspects of the IR were good, but I have said, both in public and in private—even though it is not easy to say—that aspects of it were dishonest. I do not think we can truly focus entirely on our capital spend and say that our defence capability has expanded so much because we have all this high-tech weaponry and suddenly have this huge shift to high-tech warfare, while also talking about contributary pensions in our armed forces for the first time in the UK’s history. Again, we need to look at what that means for people who are serving. I remember some painful discussions about that, and it was quite a lonely experience. Although the capital expenditure is exciting, we have to be really careful on our resource spend, which is incredibly important.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. A smaller military would find it more difficult to go to train nations such as Ukraine. We have a very good tradition of having people train other nations to defend their sovereignty.

Johnny Mercer: That is a really fair point. That was the whole point of enforcing things such as the Ranger battalions, but it was founded really on something that is not true, which is that mass is irrelevant—it is not. Data, technology and all this stuff is important. But look at what is happening in Ukraine now. Why are the Ukrainians holding out when everybody talked about  how they were going to get flattened by the Russians? They are holding out because warfare has fundamentally changed: it has changed from the cold war—this is not the cold war reheated—and it has changed from Iraq and Afghanistan. These are Ukrainians, not Iraqis or Afghans riven by tribal disputes. It is fundamentally different and the technology has changed it. What can be done with an NLAW—a next generation light anti-tank weapon—is so different. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was in the Army, much like when I was, people had to fly an anti-tank weapon—it actually had a wire coming out the back—and basically steer it on to the tank. The chances of doing that in combat were pretty slim—

Bob Stewart: indicated dissent.

Johnny Mercer: Perhaps not for my right hon. Friend—I am sure he hit it every time—but I can only speak for myself and I found it pretty hard to hit the target. These new NLAW weapons are fantastic. They require such a low train-the-trainer base that we can teach Ukrainians to do it. According to a study released last week by the United States special operations community, 280 of the 300 Javelins that the US has given to the Ukrainian forces have had mobility kills. That is a ratio that we have never seen before in conflict.
Let me say finally on the capital spend that yes, that stuff is important, but if we do not have the right quality of people to stand and fight, who know that they are going to be treasured and looked after by their nation—I bore everyone with that all the time—warfare does not work. We are seeing how it works now in the Ukrainian system. We need to be very careful in that space.

Bob Stewart: My hon. Friend, who is my very good friend, has cast aspersions on how good I am with a light anti-tank weapon and, of course, he was correct: useless. The point is that this NLAW, held by men and women who have a basic, infantry-type role, can sort out a Russian attack that is highly technology driven. We have to think again about why, when the integrated review is done, it is done and dusted, finished and stuck. We military people—there are a lot of us around the Chamber—know very well that no plan survives contact with the enemy. It is the same for the integrated review: adjust it. Stop these infantry battalions going, particularly the one that, as my good friend the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, I was involved with: the Mercian Regiment. I admit to the Minister that I am biased, but for goodness’ sake he has only a few weeks to stop the cuts so that we keep our infantry. They are invaluable in the new kind of warfare.

Johnny Mercer: My right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. Of all the decisions that we make on defence, I will genuinely be stunned if the Government proceed with that reduction in personnel, given what is happening at the moment.
Let me finish by saying something about attitude and mindset. I am obviously going to bring it back to people, but let me talk about what happens if we consistently focus just on technology. I found the IR quite frustrating, because the focus was on not making bad press announcements about the removal of regiments, although we have obviously heard the example of 2 Mercian. If we have this attitude towards capital expenditure and think that we can win wars in essence just by fighting  tech on tech and that people do not matter, that trickles down throughout the whole system and we end up in a place where we are prosecuting soldiers in Northern Ireland when they are 80 years old. It is all about attitude and mindset.
I have sat down so many times with Prime Ministers in this place and they have told me, “Johnny, there’re no votes in defence.” But that is not the point, because there are some things that we have to do to keep the nation safe—of course, they may then become prescient when Russia invades Ukraine and things like that—and they are the boring part. It is our job as legislators, MPs, Ministers and Prime Ministers to go ahead, bring people with us and get them to understand why defence matters. Even if they are not interested in the military, there is its long tail through communities such as mine in Plymouth and in defence industries; there is what veterans groups mean in communities like mine; and there is what it actually means for British people to see their 78-year-old grandfathers taken to court in Northern Ireland for fighting for the freedoms and privileges that we enjoy in this place, and how that feels for a whole generation of veterans. It really does trickle down and I urge Ministers to really think about that expenditure.

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. He is absolutely right that people claim there are no votes in defence. I would argue that there are no votes in defeat. Sadly, in the past year we have seen a reversal of our interests and influence in places such as Afghanistan and now, sadly, in Ukraine, where deterrence has now turned into defence. Although it may be true that it is not popular to spend money on insurance premiums, the alternative—finding out we are uninsured—is a lot worse.

Johnny Mercer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Mark Francois: I defer to my hon. Friend’s operational service in Afghanistan and the bravery shown by our troops on the ground, of whom he was one. It is a fact that, for all the emphasis on technology, NATO was run out of town in the end by what some ill-informed commentators described as a “bunch of country boys”, who did not have submarines, satellites, artificial intelligence and all the rest of it, but who still won. My point is that, yes, we need high technology in warfare, but we also need trained personnel who are able to use it, and an obsession with technology is not in itself enough, is it?

Johnny Mercer: My right hon. Friend is completely right. The whole end of Afghanistan should be a deep inflection point for the west and our attitude to the utility of force and what we can actually achieve in the foreign policy space. What does victory look like? What are victory and defeat actually going to look like in Ukraine?

Anthony Mangnall: I am sure that this will come up in the debate, but it is also about retention. We do have a problem in the military, across all the services, in retaining not only the people who are playing a supporting role, but those who are on the frontline. Can my hon. Friend say a few words about that?

Johnny Mercer: Yes, but I will finish here, as my final points are around the people. It really pains me deeply how these people feel after they have spent time in the  military. For many of us, it was the most amazing time of our lives. People like me were incredibly lucky and had a great time, but there are many people, including many families, who feel very bitter about it. We have done that by the decisions we have made around investment in their housing, health, and education. They felt it when the Prime Minister decided to take £2 million out of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
Clearly, there is a review coming, which I am pleased about, so I say to Ministers that it would be ludicrous not to reinstate what has been cut. I also urge them to please think about the secondary and tertiary effects of how we look after people. It is not just a lonely, boring old song that some of us sing. Those of us who have been right at the tippy end of the spear in this nation’s operations will say that the most important thing to how our people fight and what makes them fight is the moral component. Our decisions in this place and how we advocate with our constituents about defence matter and they make a difference. I urge Ministers to take that with them as they move forward.

Peter Grant: I was not convinced that I should take part in this debate, because I am possibly the least expert on defence matters in this Chamber, but I do have some comments to make.
Let me begin by saying that I do not think that asking very, very hard questions about defence spending on behalf of any of our armed forces is in any way disloyal to those who put their lives on the line. In fact, I would suggest the opposite, because, sometimes, it is our responsibility to ask the questions and to shout about the concerns that serving members of the armed forces, for obvious reasons, are not allowed to express publicly.
I wanted to speak in this debate because we can argue—no doubt we will continue to argue—about how much the defence budget should be each year. We have already seen the beginnings of an argument on the Government Benches about how much of that should be spent on small equipment, how much should be spent on major equipment and how much should be spent on people. The reality is that there will seldom be enough to spend as much as we would like to on all three areas. What concerns me is that, for far too long, the huge amounts of public money that have been spent by the Ministry of Defence have not been well spent or well managed. That means that, for the amount of money that is put into the defence budget, we do not get the number of soldiers, sailors and air personnel that we could get. We do not get the equipment that we should get, and if we do get it, we do not get it on time.
I have been looking at recent reports from the National Audit Office and from the Public Accounts Committee, which I have had the privilege of sitting on for the past two years. In June 2021, the National Audit Office published a report entitled, “Improving the Performance of Major Equipment Contracts”, because it was picking up on a catalogue of failures, of late delivery, of equipment being delivered that was not fit for purpose, and of contracts going hundreds of millions—sometimes billions —of pounds over budget. It found that in eight of the 19 major programmes under way at the time, the senior responsible owner, the military person with direct responsibility for delivering on that project rated their  delivery confidence as “amber/red” or “red”. In other words, the people charged with the responsibility for delivering those projects were not convinced they could deliver what was needed where it was needed and when it wasneeded.
The Public Accounts Committee picked up on that report and took further evidence from the MOD, and our report was published in November 2021. We identified, for example, that the contract for four Astute-class attack submarines was more than £1 billion above budget and the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers were £2.75 billion over budget. It is easy to look at those numbers in the context of the total MOD budget and say that none individually is a huge percentage, but when we think what £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion could do to improve the accommodation that service personnel are living in, for example, and what that would do for morale, that waste of public money is simply inexcusable.
The Committee made a comment that really should have rung alarm bells throughout Whitehall—bearing in mind that this is a Committee where, by its nature, the Government have a majority:
“We are deeply concerned about departmental witnesses’ inability or unwillingness to answer basic questions and give a frank assessment of the state of its major programmes.”
In other words, there was a cultural problem at the highest levels of the MOD and they were not convinced that the Public Accounts Committee, on behalf of this House, had the right to ask such questions.
The hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) said that he regarded parts of the integrated review as dishonest; I must say that some of the financial planning documents that the MOD continue to publish could well be given the same descriptor, because they simply do not give an honest and frank view of the challenges it faces in being able to afford some of its plans over the next 10 years. I mentioned improving accommodation for service personnel, and that was not a random example.

Jeremy Quin: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about some of the decisions made by the previous Labour Government, particularly in relation to the aircraft carriers, although I would not describe having those two aircraft carriers as a waste of Government money. They are an extremely valuable addition to our defence and have an extremely good job to do. I take issue with the idea of any document produced by the Department being, as he was implying, dishonest. We have an equipment plan now that has not been deemed unaffordable by the NAO. For the first time in many years, we are balancing our books and delivering on our programmes.

Peter Grant: I am glad the Minister mentioned the affordability of the equipment programme. I think that plan is dishonest if it describes itself as affordable, for reasons that I will come on to later.

Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Grant: Given that the right hon. Gentleman is a best pal of mine sometimes on the Public Accounts Committee, I will give way.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman missed the best bit of the November report, which was that the cross-party Committee concluded that the UK’s defence procurement system was “broken”. Does he agree that we are not going to deter further Russian adventurism with a £4 billion light tank that not only does not work, but deafens its own crew?

Peter Grant: I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are far too many examples for me to quote them all. I want to leave some for him. I have no doubt he will bring his much greater knowledge to bear on the example he quoted.

Kevan Jones: The Minister said the plan is in balance, but that is not what the NAO report says. It is only in balance if the Department meets the so-called efficiencies, which, on previous form, it has never met.

Peter Grant: I wish I had not let the right hon. Gentleman intervene, because he has just stolen my thunder, but never mind—“It’s nae loss whit a freen gets”, I think is the phrase we would use in Fife.
The single living accommodation, at the time the NAO started looking at it on 31 October 2010, was being used by almost exactly 80,000 armed forces personnel, or more than half the entire number of people working in our armed forces. Some 36% of those 80,000 people were living in accommodation rated grade 4 or below. The accommodation was so poor that the MOD did not even have the cheek to charge rent on it—that is how bad it was. I do not know what accommodation standards legislation is like in England, but certainly in Scotland it would be illegal to rent out some of that accommodation as a private landlord, a social landlord or a local authority.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Grant: I am sorry, but I really do need to make progress. I could talk until 7 o’clock, if the right hon. Gentleman wants me to, but I think other Members wish to speak.
The Public Accounts Committee reported that the Commands—the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force—planned to use some of the £16.5 billion of additional funding to address the backlog in maintenance and repairs of that accommodation, which at the time was estimated to be about £1.5 billion. The Committee reported at the same time:
“However, this extra funding seems to have already been spent more than once before it had even arrived with the Department”.
As I am sure many hon. Members are aware, if we listed the number of times that Ministers or civil servants told us that an MOD funding problem would be fixed by that additional money, welcome though it is, it would certainly add up to many times. Perhaps that is why they are a wee bit coy about giving us a detailed breakdown of exactly what the money will be spent on, because once they do that we will find out that it will not go nearly far enough.

Rachael Maskell: Will the hon. Member give way?

Peter Grant: The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) is not looking, so I give way to the hon. Member.

Rachael Maskell: I have been carrying out a bit of an inquiry into Annington Homes, which owns a lot of the MOD estate. The MOD is currently leasing 7,230 vacant homes from Annington Homes. Given the refugee crisis and the fact that we have 11,000 to 12,000 people in bridging hotels, would it not be worth investing in those homes and bringing them up to standard, so that they could be used to rehouse people who have now been languishing in hotels for more than six months, not least because many of them served with our armed forces?

Peter Grant: The hon. Member makes an important point, and she reminds us that if accommodation is lying empty, it should not matter which Department or public body has its name on the title deeds; houses are there for people to live in, so whether they are evacuees and refugees from Afghanistan or anyone else, it should be possible to give them the kind of accommodation they want.
I will go through some of the findings of the NAO report, “The Equipment Plan 2021 to 2031”. I think it is dishonest to state as a matter of fact that the equipment plan is affordable, because in order for it to be affordable, as the NAO report states in paragraph 2.7, £3 billion of financial risk was not included. For example, a future combat air system had an estimated cost in its business case up to 2031 of between £10 billion and £17 billion. The equipment plan allocates £8.65 billion, so that one project alone is, at best, underfunded by £1.35 billion, and at worst it has possibly been allocated barely half the money it will cost.
Paragraph 2.17 refers to £7 billion of what the MOD terms “Planned Cost Reductions”—I think this is what the right hon. Member for Warley was referring to. At the time, according to that report, the top-level budget holders had plans to deliver less than half of the £3.1 billion. Some £2.6 billion of it needed to be achieved by 2025, within the first four years, and the first of those first four years is up in three weeks’ time. As the right hon. Member mentioned, the MOD has a dismal track record, assuming it will make massive savings all over the place and delivering very little of it. It cannot afford to get it wrong this time, but I think we all know that the chances of it getting it right and delivering that £7 billion, if its past record is anything to go by, are very slight. It is yet another hole in the affordability of the equipment plan.
Paragraph 20 of the NAO report picked up on an issue that the MOD does not like us to talk about but that I think is very important. It states that the top-level budget holders were
“deliberately spending more slowly on projects to keep within their budgets”.
In other words, they were given a budget to have something delivered and ready to use in 10 years’ time, but they spend the budget in 10 years and then the equipment is not ready until after 12, 13 or 14 years. There can be unforeseeable delays in the procurement of defence equipment, but if the MOD has assessed that the military will need that equipment in 2031, and then someone in the MOD deliberately delays procuring it for any amount of time, simply to make it look as if they are sticking to the budget, I do not see how that can possibly be acceptable.
Elsewhere, the NAO estimated that about £12 billion of savings built into the equipment plan were not savings at all, but were based on spending the money after  the period of the equipment plan. They were based on delaying getting this vital equipment to our service personnel. An independent assessment carried out by the MOD’s cost assurance and analysis service, looking at projects that make up about 58% of the current year’s plan—although clearly there will be bigger expenditure on some of them later—reckoned that those projects alone were likely to cost £7.6 billion more than was assumed in the make-up of the defence equipment plan. It goes on and on. The NAO’s conclusion in paragraph 23 is that
“There is a real risk that, despite the additional funding it has received, the Department’s ambition outstrips the resources available to it.”
In layperson’s language, despite the MOD saying it has an affordable equipment plan, there is a very real risk that it does not.
Finally, the affordability of the equipment plan depends on getting an inflation plus 0.5% budget increase every year up to 2031. The Treasury has said it is comfortable with that, but given what has happened recently to public finances, the cost of living and inflation, I question whether it is still realistic to assume that is guaranteed. It is possible that it will be delivered; if it is not, that is yet another hole in the affordability of that plan. I make no apology for saying that where the equipment plan says that it is affordable and does not put all those caveats against it, it is a dishonest document for anyone to have published. It makes statements that are patently not justified, even by the information that was made available to Members of Parliament and, indeed, members of the public.
We can argue about whatever amount of money is allocated to the Ministry of Defence in this year’s budget or next year’s, or in any year coming, but we are failing our service personnel. The Government, this Parliament and the MOD are failing our service personnel, first because they are not being open and honest with them about the financial challenges they continue to face, but most importantly because surely, when somebody signs up and is willing to put their life on the line—let us not forget that two young men from Glenrothes lost their life fighting an illegal war in Iraq, and would probably be here today if they had had the best possible equipment available—the very least they are entitled to is living accommodation that is fit for human habitation, and to be given the best possible equipment available to defend themselves from enemy attack. I do not have confidence that this Government, or any future Government in this place, will genuinely honour those commitments.
That is why, whatever budget is set for the MOD through the due process, there needs to be a complete root-and-branch review of financial management—far too often, financial mismanagement—within the Ministry of Defence. It is costing billions and billions of pounds that the MOD simply cannot afford to waste, and there will be times when it risks costing the lives of our service personnel.

Julian Lewis: Not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last time, the House has cause to be grateful to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for reaching across the party divide in support of the strongest possible defence of this country and the strongest possible support for NATO.  It is in that spirit, as a former Chairman of the Defence Committee, that I acknowledge the stalwart support he has given to successive holders of that post. This is an opportunity for defence-minded parliamentarians to give some initial reaction to the colossal and extraordinary events of the past fortnight in the context of what Britain was going to spend on defence, and what it should spend on defence in future.
In June 1950, five years after the end of world war two and following a time of mass demobilisation, the Korean war broke out. The effect of that conflict, quite apart from the terrible consequences for the people living in Korea, was to cause a huge reassessment of the amount of national effort that must be invested in defence in the United Kingdom. That led to a reconsideration of the level of defence expenditure, and I suggest that the seismic events of the past two weeks should lead to a similar reassessment of what we are prepared to invest in defence in the United Kingdom in the 21st century. We cannot conduct this debate as if nothing serious has happened to transform the situation in the past two weeks.
Although it is very early and the outcome of the conflict is still very much in doubt, I suggest it is possible to come tentatively to about half a dozen conclusions, and I will run through them very quickly. First, I think we can say that the advanced public messaging by the United States, NATO, the United Kingdom and other allies has been outstanding. It has prevented President Putin from seizing the narrative. By predicting accurately in advance what he was going to do, it has completely undermined his potential disinformation campaign. Every pronouncement that we hear from the Kremlin is so ludicrously at odds with reality that it cuts no ice at all, except with those totally indoctrinated.
Secondly, the events of the past fortnight dispel any illusions we might have had about the nature of our Russian adversary. As has been said rightly many times by those on the Front Bench, that is not the Russian people, but the people in control of that great, but benighted country. We must remember that people such as President Putin are the direct descendants of the regime whose ideology led them to kill millions of their own people in the decades in which Leninism and bolshevism held sway. Although the communist doctrine has collapsed, the mindset, the imperialism and the brutality have not. I have previously described President Putin in uncomplimentary terms, and I think it is worth repeating them. This man is a cynical, sneering psychopath. He does not care how many people he kills, as long as he gets his own way. Anyone thinking that there is a way to reason with these people, rather than deter, contain or, if necessary, defeat them, is living in a world of fantasy.
Thirdly, in light of Ukraine’s decision to give up—admittedly it was not a system it could operate at the time, but given time it could have done so—the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, which it inherited from the former Soviet Union, any lingering doubts about the wisdom of the United Kingdom continuing to possess a strategic nuclear deterrent as long as Russia does so have finally been put to bed.

Peter Grant: rose—

Julian Lewis: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because I know his party has a problem with this issue, but I do not intend to let it dominate my speech.

Peter Grant: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we do not have a problem with the issue; we have a problem with nuclear weapons. Is he not aware that as a matter of international law, as a successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia was the legal owner of those nuclear weapons? It was entitled to take them away. Ukraine would have been in breach of the law to try to hold on to them.

Julian Lewis: Yes, and I am also aware that as a result of Ukraine’s decision to give up those nuclear weapons, Russia guaranteed the security and the borders of Ukraine. If the hon. Gentleman is going to throw international law at me, all I can say to him is that, if he thinks that those sorts of manoeuvres and unilateral renunciations are the way to stop someone being attacked and destroyed by a ruthless adversary, it should be a long time indeed before he and people who think like him have any influence on the way in which we choose to keep the peace—by deterrence—so that we do not end up in a situation like Ukraine.
Fourthly, this horrible situation should establish whether and to what extent economic sanctions can force an aggressor to desist. It is often said that the world has become more interdependent. We will never see a more extreme example of democratic countries seeking to use economic pressures to force an aggressor to desist. If that fails to work in this instance, it will be a further argument for increased investment in hard defence capability, because that particular aspect of hoping to be able to turn war into an outmoded concept will, sadly, have been disproved. I hope that it does play a part in stopping Russia from proceeding, but I am not holding my breath.
Fifthly, the conflict has exposed the folly of fuel dependence on hostile countries and raised questions about the wisdom of a policy of unilateral net zero targets by democracies regardless of what much larger countries, that are not democracies, do. I am not seeking to pick an argument with the environmentalists; I am merely saying that there is a parallel with the question of unilateral or one-sided nuclear disarmament, because if we achieve net zero at tremendous cost to ourselves while much larger hostile countries simply flout the commitments that they have given, we will have taken that pain for no benefit to anyone. Targets must be multilateral if they are going to do anything other than weaken our ability to protect ourselves.
The last of the six lessons is that the conflict has killed the idea that conventional aggression by one state against another is an outmoded 20th-century concept. Time and again, people such as the right hon. Member for Warley on the Opposition Benches and my right hon. and hon. Friends present on the Conservative Benches have raised the question of what an appropriate level of defence investment should be, only to be told from on high, “You’ve got to realise that there are new forms of warfare. The next war will not be fought much with conventional armed forces. It will be fought in cyber-space or even in space itself.” Of course, there are new and serious threats—potentially fatal threats—in those two newer areas of conflict, but they are additional threats.  They are not substitutes for the threats that we have always faced and continue to face from conventional armed forces.

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend—who is a good friend and is gallant, because he was a midshipman once—for allowing me to intervene. One thing that the Russians are showing is that to take territory, people have to put boots on it. But, guess what? We are chucking our boots out. That is appalling and we must reverse that decision.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) comes back, I think it is important to let hon. Members know that I will have to impose a time limit when he has finished, otherwise we will simply not get everybody in. The time limit will probably be around six minutes, depending on how long he takes.

Robert Syms: rose—

Julian Lewis: I will briefly give way, and then I will conclude.

Robert Syms: There are one or two other lessons from the current conflict. One is the impact of mobile phone cameras and psychological ops on the way in which a country communicates with itself and the world, and I think we could learn from that. I think we have lost a lot of the skills that we had in the second world war and when we were facing the Soviet Union, and this is one area we need to look at.

Julian Lewis: I quite agree with both my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and my hon. Friend.
Bearing in mind your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude with one point about the budget itself. During the period in which I chaired the Defence Committee, we produced two reports—one in 2016 called “Shifting the goalposts?” and the other an update to that report in 2019—with the purpose of setting very firmly on the record what the proportion of GDP spent on defence had been historically on a like-for-like basis. It is a fact that, in the aftermath of the Korean war, defence spending as a proportion of GDP at one point was as high as 7%. In about 1963, it crossed over with spending on welfare at 6%. That was all a long time ago, but as recently as the 1980s the spending on health, education and defence was roughly the same at just over 4% of GDP.

John Baron: My right hon. Friend, I and probably everybody present in the Chamber have been calling since we have been Members of Parliament for much higher defence spending. I think that is accepted. However, does he agree with me that once that higher level of spending is determined, we should not necessarily link it to GDP, because economies can go up and down? There have to be real-terms increases once that higher figure is decided, otherwise the armed forces will not know where they are and it will be difficult to plan.

Julian Lewis: I do agree with that point; using GDP percentages has always been only a very rough and ready guide.
What was absolutely shocking was the way in which, given that even within half a dozen years of the downfall of the Berlin wall—as late as 1993-94—we were still spending 3.1% on the old method of calculation and 3.6% on the new method of calculation, whereby the MOD is allowed to include certain things we never used to include, it then became an argument as to whether we would even manage to achieve 2% of GDP. Our expectations have been managed down so far that when, even in recent times, a number of us have called for 3% to be a target, it was regarded as being completely out of reach. It should not be out of reach. The sort of effort we put into defending this country is the most important investment we can make, so 3% of GDP should now be seen not as a target or as a minimum, but as a stepping stone on the way to a realistic investment to meet the threat that never really went away, the reality of which in Ukraine has now been proclaimed for all the world to see.

Jamie Stone: I shall try to be helpful and keep my contribution relatively brief. Typically of such debates, it is very good in some ways and not so good in others. It is very good in that I sense that on all sides of the House we are singing from the same sheet. That is good for our armed forces personnel, because they are hearing a message supportive to them. It is bad in that most of my speech has been covered.
However, I have read the December 2021 House of Commons Defence Committee report “We’re going to need a bigger Navy” with the very greatest of interest, and I congratulate the right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee on putting it together. It is sobering reading, and I will draw just two facts out of it. I will do this because my grandfather served with the Royal Navy at a time when the Royal Navy really did rule the waves: it was the biggest navy in the world. For the interest of the House, I will point out that my grandfather trained at “Britannia”, as it was known, in the very same two years as somebody called the honourable Reginald Drax, who is in a photograph with my grandfather—our ancestors were there together.
I would pull two things out of the report. The Type 45 destroyers having their engines repaired, which meant that so few of them were at sea, is a disgrace. We cannot have that happen. They are now projected to be re-engined or repaired by 2028. That is not good enough. We need these state-of-the-art warships at sea as soon as possible—right away—and if that takes extra money, so be it.
The report also contains a reference to the Type 31 frigates, and an eloquent argument is put forward that we will probably need more than the five that are planned. The national flagship idea has its attractions, but—I have made this point before—if we are to build the ship at roughly the same cost as a Type 31, would it not be better as a Type 31? We could have internal alterations to accommodate Her Majesty, civic leaders, or whatever we want to do with it, but we should have it as a warship, rather than as a national flagship that will, in turn, have to be escorted, I fear, by another warship.
I will end where I began: the size of the British Army. I cannot compete with the august gentlemen on all sides of the Chamber who have served in the armed forces,  but many years ago I was Private Stone in the mortar platoon of C company of the Second 51st Highland Volunteers. That battalion was set up in such a way that if—perish the thought—something happened in Europe and the bear began to growl, I would give up my day job and be whizzed right off to Germany. That was what we were intended to do. We knew that and we knew it was part of the job spec. I am also bound to say that Russia—the USSR as it then was—knew that that was how those battalions of the British Territorial Army would be deployed in the event of a deteriorating national situation.

Jim Shannon: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the size of the British Army and the need to return to the numbers we have lost over the past few years—the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to that. In Northern Ireland, we are able to recruit above the norm of what we are allocated. The Minister will be aware of that. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that extra numbers of recruits should be set aside for Northern Ireland for full time, but also for the Territorial Army and the reserves?

Jamie Stone: I would, of course, endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, and having had two brothers-in-law who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, I know a little about it.
I do not want to mislead the Chamber. I do not want the impression to be abroad that Private Stone, doubling forward by half section with his Carl Gustaf, made a huge contribution to the defence of the realm. But what I am saying is that I knew a bit about how things were done back then, and it was about credibility and our potential opponents seeing that we were serious about defending this country. Finally—then I will sit down, Madam Deputy Speaker—the point is well made about having numbers of armed forces personnel to train our friends, such as has been happening in Ukraine. I have said this many times before and I say it one last time: if we take the British Army below a certain size, it will not be such an attractive career choice for the brightest and best who we need to employ to defend our nation.

John Howell: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. As always in this debate, there are good things and bad things. I am pleased to see that the UK remains the biggest European NATO spender, second only to the United States, but there are also bad things and hon. Members have particularly mentioned the cut in the British Army.

Bob Stewart: indicated assent.

John Howell: I see my right hon. Friend is nodding, so perhaps he will not intervene on me, having made that point. But there is another point on that—the strategic investment that the Royal Air Force will be making, which I will come back to. I am very conscious that it is not just us increasing spending now but countries such as Germany and Denmark. I encourage them to increase their spending further.
Before I come to the Royal Air Force, let me say a word about the Navy. Before the crisis between Russia and Ukraine started, I got the Navy’s leading expert on Russia to come to speak to my delegation to the Council of Europe. Hon. Members may ask why I got a naval expert to come to a delegation that has said it has nothing to do with the security apparatus of Europe. The reason is that I do not buy that argument and actually what the rear-admiral concerned said filled us with a tremendous amount of horror. He pointed out Russia’s interest in the Baltic passages in particular and, more generally, how ill-equipped we were to be able to deal with that. I therefore ask for more investment to be made in that area.
Something like £2 billion of strategic investment is to be made in the Royal Air Force. I think that that should be increased. If Russia has taught us anything, it is that investment in tanks is not a very good investment. If we look at Ukraine, a huge amount of anti-tank missiles are there already and something as fleet of foot as the Royal Air Force is to be commended. I do not want to set a hare running, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that bases such as RAF Benson are not earmarked for closure. They play a vital role and Benson does in particular in looking after the helicopters that we use all the time in our Air Force. They also have another use; they provide training.

Andrew Bowie: I had the privilege of visiting RAF Benson just a couple of weeks ago and I reiterate my hon. Friend’s comments on that base’s contribution to training the next generation of helicopter pilots and supporting the wider RAF and, indeed, the local community. I echo his remarks and hope that the Minister will confirm that Benson is not earmarked for closure.

John Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and support. I was going to mention some of that training—and, indeed, some of the training that I have gone through there. Benson is home to CAE, a company that provides a tremendous amount of simulator training for the RAF. He will no doubt be pleased to know that I flew a Chinook and a Puma on the simulator so successfully that I did not crash them. I think that is a tribute to the success of the training, rather than to my dexterity at the controls of two very large aircraft.
On the relationship with companies that provide equipment and larger things to the military, over the years I have tried to put across to the Minister’s Department the idea of a conflict avoidance board for such projects. They work incredibly well in industry. People who are skilled in mediation sit on them and their aim is to stop something becoming a conflict. As we all know, all projects have such problems during their lives and conflict avoidance boards are good at ensuring that we can avoid such conflicts. What is the benefit of that? It goes straight to the heart of the budget. Doing that is much cheaper than spending vast amounts of money going through the courts, with QCs and whoever else is needed to settle a particular argument. I urge the Minister to look at the scheme again for his larger projects. The feedback that I got was closer to a kick in the teeth than anything else, yet I think the boards have tremendous potential. On that note, I will finish and allow somebody else to take over.

Kevan Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for opening the debate. He is right that our thoughts today are with the people of Ukraine and the brave servicemen and women, and civilians, who are resisting the might and cruelty of Putin’s war machine. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, that focuses our minds in our debate on defence.
We need to ask how we have ended up with the smallest Army in our history. That has not happened by accident; it is a political choice. In 2010, a Conservative party came into power, in the coalition Government, that had argued before the election for more spending on everything in defence, but then, suddenly, they got into a programme of austerity, under the cloud of a mythical £38 billion black hole that the bad Labour Government had left them. That never existed and we know that because within two years, it seemed to have disappeared, given what the Government said.
That Government cut the budget by 16% because the Treasury wanted money out of that budget. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) asked why this was about people—well, it was about people because that is how to get money quickly out of a budget. The Government did things such as making people take compulsory redundancy and losing people with vast experience, and it was absolutely shameful. If a Labour Government had done that, frankly, there would have been an outcry.

John Spellar: Is my right hon. Friend not shocked that that Government did not learn lessons from the cuts in personnel under Options for Change after the end of the cold war, which led to the same collapse in morale and loss of experience?

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend is right, but these measures were not about that. They were about the Treasury making austerity cuts. We now have a situation where the present Government—who, again, talk in slogans—talk about the biggest cash injection ever. The budget will still be lower in real terms than it was in 2010. The fact is that, like the right hon. Member for New Forest East, I would agree with increasing the defence budget, but we have to recognise how we got to where we are today.
Interestingly, there is clearly some thinking going on in the MOD, because I asked a parliamentary written question last week, which I tend to do, as the Minister knows, on whether the cuts would be reversed. I would have expected to get a reply within days, but last night, I got a holding reply saying that the question of whether the MOD would reverse the decision on reducing the Army to 73,000 personnel could not be answered in the normal timescale, so I suspect that a lot of work is going on in the MOD on that. It has to look at that, because everyone who has spoken in this debate has said that, although we can have enough equipment and the concepts of war, at the end of the day, we need people. That is key.
As Members know, I have always been an advocate for defence and I would argue for more defence spending, but I think that argument will fall on deaf ears a lot if we look at the way that this matter is being managed internally in the MOD. The NAO report is a bit like  groundhog day: every year it comes back with a catalogue of delays and overspends. Whatever the Minister says, I am sorry, but he should just read the report. The budget is not in surplus. It misses things out and looks at efficiencies. But it has been like this for the past 10 years, and efficiencies have never been achieved and never will be.
It is important that we use defence expenditure, if we actually get it, to generate capacity in the UK defence industry and ensure that we get the equipment we want. I welcome things like the national shipbuilding strategy, but I am appalled that, even this week, the MOD has given a £10 million contract to a Dutch yard for a vessel that could have been built here. The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has done a very good report that says that we should take social value into account when awarding contracts. I have asked the Department and now the National Audit Office to tell me what the formula is for that.
We are buying off the shelf from the United States and others, without any commitment to supporting our native shipbuilding and defence sector. I am one of the people arguing for more on defence, but I want to ensure that there is a proper defence industrial strategy behind it, not only to deliver for our armed forces, but to ensure that we get jobs and prosperity here. I see no evidence of that at the moment.
The last thing I would like to talk about is the nuclear deterrent. As the House knows, I have always been an advocate for our continuous at-sea deterrence, and these times have brought its importance into sharp focus. It will be important for the Department to ensure that the programme not only has finance behind it, but is actually on target. People have talked about the guarantees that Ukraine was given; whatever Putin guarantees is completely worthless, but the one guarantee that we have behind us is the nuclear deterrent. It is important that we maintain it.
These are dark times. We will hear a lot of instant judgments about what is happening in Ukraine, but we cannot have armed forces without people, and we have to invest in those people. It is not just about numbers, but about making sure that we have the right skillsets and that they continue. Frankly, the IR is now redundant and has to be revisited. And can we get away from the slogan “global Britain”? It is a great slogan, but it suggests that we are going to rule the waves and send power around the world. We will not, on our defence budget, and we never will again.
We have to ensure that we invest in what we are good at. It might be unpalatable for some Government Members, but we have to work with our European colleagues in NATO to ensure that we deliver a deterrent effect—I was going to say “on the Soviet Union”, and actually there is not much difference between that and Putin’s ideology and the way he is doing things. We have to ensure that that happens and is done in a coherent way. We have to get away from the rhetoric. Let us have a proper defence budget that is not only in balance, but puts the investment where it counts.
I will break the habit of a lifetime and agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who has just come back into the Chamber: we have to invest in people. We can have all the best equipment in the world, but without the people, the skillsets and the right mix, we will not get a deterrent effect or treat our people right, as they deserve.

Robert Syms: It is quite clear that since we ran down our defence establishment following the cold war, events have proved that we need to spend a lot more on defence. One thing about the cold war was that it froze a lot of conflicts in the world, because it involved the two great powers. Since we ran down our defence spending in the 1990s, we have been committed for years and years to several conflicts, firing in some and peacekeeping in others, so there has been a tremendous strain on the military budget over a long period.
The strength and value of our defence establishment is in the leadership, training, tradition and morale of its people. Our services have quite often been deployed with kit that is older or is not that good, but because of the quality of those men and women, they have been able to fulfil their task. What is coming out clearly from this debate is that we need more boots in the military, because that gives us a lot of options.
One thing we know is that while Ukraine has a defence establishment of about 200,000, it has 400,000 veterans in the Donbas, it has militia and volunteers and there are probably several hundred thousand people with Kalashnikovs running around, which is why the Russians are having a terrible problem. Being armed with modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles adds a little bit of edge to that.
I think we need to revisit the integrated defence review, and I think we will need to spend more on defence. If Members disagree with that, they should talk to their constituents, because I think most of our constituents realise that this is one area in which we have to get it right. We need only look at a country where, in blocks of flats, schools and hospitals, children are being killed to realise that our own first duty as a country is to defend our realm—within NATO, but we must also have the ability to do this ourselves, because ultimately it is our responsibility to protect our fellow citizens.
This is, I think, a wake-up call for us, and I am sure that the Government will listen to what people are saying. The only question is whether we end up at 3% quickly or slowly, because I think that that will be the direction of travel. We need new kit, but it is it is clear that unless we increase the defence budget, we will not retain the personnel and secure the equipment that we need to remain a substantial military power. There are items in the review that we were going to do without for a while, such as AWACS—the airborne warning and control system—and I think that that is very short-sighted.
Let me say to the Minister that I think the Ministry of Defence will receive substantial support, from some Opposition Members and certainly from many Conservative Back Benchers, for a review of where we are now and where we are going to go. History does repeat itself. Sometimes we think it will not because no one will be stupid enough to do what people have done before, but we need only look at the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-40 to see many parallels with what is taking place now.
This country has much to be proud of in its support for Ukraine. I would not particularly like us to be fighting tanks at the moment, because I suspect that we are rather short of anti-tank missiles—I hope the Minister is ordering new ones just in case—but the simple truth is that we need air power, we need more power in the form of ships to support our aircraft carriers, and we need more of our Army personnel.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), people have been training the Ukrainians for seven years, and some 22,000 have now been trained. I am sure they are putting that training to very good use at the moment in fighting for their survival. The British Army, even when it is not fighting, can help our friends by using its skills and abilities to ensure that the military in other countries gain the benefit of our experience. Of course, we have been at the other end of wars, driving along roads when people have shot at us, and we have learned many lessons over the years that we can impart to our friends.
I also think—my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) understands this—that we should take on the lessons about psychological ops, propaganda and putting one’s own side of the story. Communicating with people is very important, and the Ukrainians, whatever their military skills, have the support of the world because they were quick to do that. The Russians may be just a Soviet tribute act, but they are behaving in exactly the way the Soviets would have behaved, spreading disinformation and not being honest with people. I have been amazed at the bravery of ordinary Russian citizens who, although they do not get the full truth from their media, have been willing to demonstrate and to be arrested and beaten. I wonder how I would behave if, living in Moscow or St Petersburg, I opposed an invasion. Would I be brave enough, or would my family be brave enough, to demonstrate in the same way? People show courage in tremendously different ways. You can be brave on the battlefield, but not quite so brave when you think you are going to be beaten over the head by a policeman or chucked into jail.
I think that the direction of travel in defence has to be more resources. We have to look at the integrated defence review. There will be a great deal of support from Conservative Members for moving from 2%—however the figures were added up—towards 3% or more. As a rich nation we can afford to do that, and I think we would be foolish not to do it, because at the end of the day everything else is trivial if people are in the situation that the Ukrainians are in.

Rosie Winterton: I want to start the wind-ups at 6.30 pm, and I have four speakers left. That means that I will have to reduce the time limit to five minutes per speaker.

Anthony Mangnall: I will try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was struck by a letter in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago from Lieutenant General Sir James Bucknall. It is short, and it should be required reading for all Members. His final paragraph ends with the line:
“There needs to be an honest, unvarnished appraisal of our current capabilities.”
As has already been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), plans do not survive first contact, and in these instances we need to review them, and to do so at pace.
There are just four points that would like to make in this debate, because I suspect that all the other points I would have made have already been made far more articulately and far better than I could have made them. The first is on recruitment, which my hon. Friend the  Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) mentioned. It is extraordinary that the stats for the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army are all higher. In the 12 months running up to 30 September 2021, the Royal Navy had an uplift in recruitment of 4.3%, the Army had an uplift of 25.2% and the RAF had an uplift of 8.2%. The staggering difference between the three services and the way in which the Army succeeds show that there are lessons to be learned by the RAF and the Navy on how they can encourage that level of recruitment.
As I said earlier in my intervention on my hon. Friend, the concern I have is about outflow and retention. Even the briefing document we were given for this debate talks about the fact that there is a problem with staffing and retention in the Defence Nuclear Organisation, and it is not just limited to that area. It also occurs in the Army and the Air Force, and in some of the places where we really want to have our staff because there is a national security need for it. This needs to be addressed immediately, and I hope that the Government will be able to give some clarity in their summing up.
On housing, a number of Members have touched on the idea that we must ensure that our armed forces personnel are given the best services and that they have the equipment they need. That point also stands for their families and for the housing and accommodation they are given. I am proud that I have the Britannia Royal Navy College in my constituency, as Private Stone said earlier, but we occasionally have a problem there when we find it difficult to staff people who are coming down to train future recruits, and to put them into suitable housing within the vicinity. We have been fortunate in that we have always managed to get through those difficult situations, but the problem is going to become greater, because house prices in coastal areas such as mine are shooting through the roof. I respectfully ask the Minister to refer to some points on housing for armed forces personnel, because this is going to come up time and again.
I think I have been very clear in my time in this place about my support for international development and the aid budget. One of the things that came up when we were having the debate around foreign aid was whether we should look at certain reforms, and if we return to 0.7%, I would really like us to look at ways in which some of that money could be spent through the Ministry of Defence to support our armed forces to undertake humanitarian missions. There is real value in those sorts of things—

Kevan Jones: indicated dissent.

Anthony Mangnall: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Fine, but I think there is real value in having the ability to unilaterally send in humanitarian forces using our defence budget.
The last point I would like to make is that our military academies have extraordinary export value. We attract an enormous number of foreign students who come through them and pass out, and we should cultivate that further. I am particularly pleased that the current captain of the Britannia Royal Navy College, Captain Roger Readwin, has done a fantastic job in attracting cadets from all over the world to pass through this historic college. More of that would not only give us the  ability to learn from other countries but ensure that we strengthened our defence relationships with countries around the world.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) says that he does not like slogans. Well, I like “global Britain”, but I think it needs to be fleshed out. If we are going to talk about global Britain, we have to prove it in the things that we do. I have said before that this is about the four pillars of trade, defence, diplomacy and development. If we can ensure that our defence is linked with other countries around the world and that we can help to train people in this country, that will send a strong, positive message and provide us with armed forces that are able to respond to some of the problems we are facing. The fragility of the world is more apparent than ever. If we are to play a part in global Britain and if that is to have real meaning, we must adapt as well as update.

Richard Drax: I would be inept if I did not praise our Ukrainian friends and allies who are fighting with such courage against such appalling odds with little more than the kit we have given them and their training. It really is awe-inspiring and humbling to see what is being done by them, their population and their President, who spoke so movingly in this Chamber.
I thank the members of the Defence Committee, on which I sit. They all do a fantastic job, including the right hon. Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), who are passionate about the defence of our country and ensuring it is properly paid for.
I also praise the Minister, with whom I have had many dealings. He is an honourable man of great integrity, and he wants to do the best he can for our armed forces. I hope he will take everything we have said back to his boss.
In 1981 or 1982, when I was a soldier, I was taken on a top-secret mission to be shown where we would fight the Russians if they came west. When I asked the general in charge how long we would have to live, he said, “On the moment of contact, when the artillery falls on your position, you have about 40 seconds.” I thought, “Well, that’s time to say a few prayers, and that will be it.” We all felt it was surreal. Yes, we were professional soldiers, but to us it was a day out and it could not possibly happen, could it?
Forty years later, we face an aggressive Russian bear that is taking on a democratic country, taking it over and subjugating it. Like many colleagues and many people to whom I have spoken, I fear Russia will not stop there. Mr Putin’s dream is to have the Soviet Union back in its original shape. My fear is that he will next go south to the non-NATO countries, based on the fact we have done nothing militarily, except to offer military help, following the invasion of Ukraine.
I am not saying that we should get involved in Ukraine. I think we have adopted the right stance. Obviously, as I have said before, if Russia takes one step into a NATO country, we will have to fight, but with what? The cupboard is threadbare, in my humble opinion. I have sat on the Defence Committee, and I served my Queen and country for nine years, so I know what has happened to our armed forces.
I am particularly concerned about the Army. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned my esteemed grandfather Admiral Drax, who sadly passed away many years ago. If he were alive today, I am sure he would be in this Chamber right now, or being kept out by force, to tell the Minister that the Royal Navy—the senior service, as my grandfather and father, who also served in the Royal Navy, always called it—needs more ships and more equipment, and all the rest. I absolutely concur.
The evidence I receive from those serving in the Army, including many sons of friends, is that the battalions have been hollowed out to save cap badges, because it would be politically embarrassing if we again saw regiments amalgamating or disappearing. This would be quite unacceptable if, God forbid, the Russian bear puts a foot into a NATO country and our young men and women are sent to fight in perhaps not a world war but certainly a huge war in Europe. A full, properly manned battalion represents years of history, fighting and experience. Hollowing out the battalions now for political expediency is totally unacceptable.

Bob Stewart: When I joined my battalion in Bahrain in 1969, it was 750 strong. When I commanded it in 1991, it was 525. It is now less than that, but it is still called a battalion.

Richard Drax: Absolutely, my right hon. Friend makes my point.
Before I sit down, may I just refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who touched on tanks? It is worth pointing out that we must not be fooled about them. One hears that they are a thing of the past and they are vulnerable to anti-tank missiles and so forth—to the Ukrainians’ great credit, they are showing that. However, one has to remember that the Ukrainians are in a defensive position, in trenches, fighting a defensive battle against armour that is coming at them. Fortunately, the Russians are proving themselves to be inept in using their armour, which is vulnerable to this sort of defence. But where the tank is vital and will still be needed, despite the fact that I understand that we have only two such regiments left, is if we have an offensive operation or if defence requires an offensive element. We will then need an armoured vehicle with a big gun to hold ground. Helicopters and drones cannot do that, but a tank can. All I would say is: don’t forget the poor old tank. It still has a place on the battlefield, although I quite accept that warfare is changing. Let me make a final point to the Minister. Mention has been made of the Special Boat Service and its aquatic centre. These are our special forces, they want a proper aquatics centre, so can they please have one?

Andrew Bowie: It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. I have been nearly five years in this place, and every six months or so—periodically at least—we come together to discuss defence. Usually, it is the same old voices and the same points being made, and we all go away saying, “It is good to hear a unified Chamber all speaking as one asking for more to be spent on defence and for  more interest to be shown in the defence community or the armed forces in general.” Undoubtedly, we would hear a polite and eloquent response from the Minister at the Dispatch Box—I am expecting no less from today’s Minister—espousing the great extent to which the UK Government were investing more in the armed forces and where it was being spent. The difference today is that we are conducting this debate at a time when images are being shown on our television screens of events happening in Europe now that we thought we would be witnessing only in history books or documentaries—a Europe of 1942, not of 2022. That puts this debate into context. We are talking about defence spending and the estimates, so the debate gives us the chance to interrogate the MOD’s expenditure and to look at wider defence spending. As I was mentioning those on the Treasury Bench, I must pay tribute to the excellent work that Ministers, specifically those in this Department, have been doing over the past few weeks, keeping us all informed, carrying the message to the British public about what we are doing to support the Ukrainian people and ensuring that the Ukrainian armed forces got the training and the equipment that they need to stop Russia and to stop Vladimir Putin doing what he is doing.
I wish to make two points. The first is on the continual debate about percentage spending. We should always remember that 2% is the minimum we are expected to spend on defence by NATO. We now need to look very much at what that 2% is. What does the 2% mean when it comes to UK defence spending? A 2016 report by the Defence Committee called “Shifting the goalposts?” showed that now the 2% includes war pensions, contributions to United Nations peacekeeping, pensions for retired civilian MOD personnel and MOD income, among other things. Fair enough, if that is to be included in defence spending, that is to be included in defence spending, but we should not for one minute assume that if we are saying we are spending 2% of GDP on defence, it is being spent on defence equipment or on personnel; it now covers a far bigger, wider range of things than it used to when we were calculating what we were contributing to the overall NATO budget.
The report also said:
“The 2% pledge, while necessary, may not be sufficient. We believe that the focus should not be merely on a headline figure, but on whether this expenditure can possibly provide a sound defence for the UK.”
Never has that been more true than today, given what we are witnessing in Europe. As has been said time and time again, mass still matters. When the integrated review was published last year, I welcomed much of it. I think we do need to invest in cyber and psy-ops—psychological operations—and we need to spend more on the Royal Navy, in a period when our need to be in charge of the seas, to protect freedom of navigation, especially in the South China sea, with our allies over there, is very important. But it is absolutely true that, as so many Members have said today, a plan survives only until first contact with the enemy. We must now look at the assumptions made in the integrated review, because they are simply out of date. I am not saying we should review the review—goodness me, we all know how much time and effort is taken by defence reviews in general—but it is essential that we look at what we are currently doing and at where we will spend money in the near future.
It is simply inconceivable that we are about to reduce the size of our Army by 10,000 personnel. At a time when allies of ours are being invaded by an aggressive foe, it is simply untenable for us to send the signal that we are reducing the size of our armed forces. That has to be looked at again. I echo the words of so many of my colleagues when I say that we really must increase spending on defence. Defence is not a luxury item, a “might have” or an addition; it is essential to who we are and what we deliver for our allies around the world. We do deliver for our allies around the world, but we need to ensure that we do so in the most efficient manner possible.

Marcus Fysh: As we have heard time and again today, we need to spend more on defence. This really could not be a graver time for the world. I do not think any of us in the House imagined that we would be in such a position, discussing this issue in these circumstances. Sadly, I think our armed forces are going to have a lot more to do over the coming years so we need to make sure that we fund and equip them appropriately. As a House we need properly and diligently to shoulder that massive responsibility.
One thing on which people have not yet focused very much but which I fear will be very much the focus of discussion in the coming years is just how difficult an economic situation the world is going to be in. Because of the sanctions and everything that has been going on in respect of our not wanting to engage with Russia and its exports of energy, materials and agricultural products, there is going to be massive food-price inflation throughout the world and in some of the world’s poorest areas, including the middle east, central Asia and north Africa. I am afraid that will almost certainly cause grave circumstances for the people who live in those areas, meaning we will be called on to help in all sorts of different ways, including from a humanitarian point of view and from a climate point of view. There will undoubtedly be lots of disputes and arguments about such matters over the coming years. We need to be clear-eyed about the economic damage that is going to be done to the world and to our economy because of this situation. As a result, we need to look at absolute numbers in respect of what we need to invest in defence to achieve the things we want to achieve: we must not be hung up on a particular percentage-of-GDP target, because that is going to be a moving feast and I think we will, unfortunately, be in a fairly major recession before too long.
I wish to focus on one procurement issue that, in the context I have set out, we need to accelerate: the procurement of the medium-lift helicopter requirement that was identified in the defence review. It has been put out to competition, but the context has changed—we are not in Kansas anymore—and we need to accelerate the procurement process and demonstrate to the world how the UK can procure in a more agile and nimble way than it has done in the past. In particular, if we want to get the helicopters into service by 2024, and given the various stresses on global supply chains, it makes sense to get a decision as soon as possible.

Mark Tami: May I quickly make the point that competition is still important, because experience has shown us that, when there been no competition, we have ended up with poor procurement?

Marcus Fysh: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is also important that that happens in a timely fashion. A capable machine is proposed to be made in my constituency. Leonardo’s AW149 is not only the best helicopter for the military purpose, but the best in terms of delivering jobs and delivering on that strategic asset that we have in the UK, through Leonardo’s facilities in Yeovil, for end-to-end helicopter production. It is also the only candidate for that requirement, which will deliver exports and jobs into the future. We do need to get that done as soon as possible and to support our people with the best possible equipment.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Dave Doogan: I wish to thank the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for securing this debate. It is an important debate, focusing as it does on the state’s ability to defend the people of these islands, albeit under the current constitutional arrangements. Sovereignty is the precious prize that elevates countries from the ignominy of sub-state status. We see the value of that with the brave actions of Ukrainians, fighting with everything at their disposal to protect their sovereignty, their independence and the freedom of their people, and all power to them in that battle.
Value in defence terms can be for some an abstract concept, especially in times of prolonged peace at home, but in so far as that has generally been the case for the past 75 years, we should wake from that complacency now, as democracy fights for its very survival in the cities of Ukraine. We see in that conflict the criticality of having the right equipment at the right time in the right place. That necessarily turns the spotlight on the institutionally incompetent defence procurement dynamic with which the UK is encumbered. Even the Treasury does not trust the Ministry of Defence to manage its finances effectively, and categorises it in the third quartile of Government Departments for financial management and capability. I can only assume, therefore, that there is nobody in the fourth quartile.
Any one of the MOD’s headline failures would represent a multi-billion pound betrayal of the taxpayer, but the Ministry of Defence has a veritable conveyor belt of these debacles, from Nimrod to Chinook, through Warrior to Ajax. There will be a lot more said about Ajax tomorrow, but it really takes the biscuit in terms of absolute dysfunctional defence procurement. Creative accounting with rose-tinted projections, which plan for undetermined savings to accrue to the MOD’s balance sheet at some unspecified point in the future, is the culture that manifests claims that we will see the plan come in £4.3 billion under budget—no detail, no plan.
The National Audit Office report on the equipment plan states that the MOD has been
“over-optimistic in their assumptions…of targeted savings”
and has identified a number of costs savings that have no plan as to how they will be achieved—£4.2 billion of extra spending that the MOD has not included. The MOD’s own Cost Assurance and Analysis Service produced an independent assessment of the cost of projects making up 58% of the plan’s costs this year and concluded that they are likely to cost £7.6 billion more than projected.
It is expected that the Dreadnought programme—the largest one in the plan—which is already delayed by six years, will cost an additional £2.6 billion. Early business cases for the new medium-lift helicopter and Future Commando Force show that those programmes are currently underfunded. In the case of the new medium-lift helicopter, Industry primes are currently waiting for the MOD to behave like a procurement organisation that has a clue about what it wants, or even when it wants it—but that is in vain. Despite the taxpayers’ large budget increase to the Ministry of Defence, the equipment plan will go over budget in the next few years of the plan. Ministers are fooling nobody when they discuss how they will make savings somewhere, somehow, over the next 10 years.
On personnel, currently the Army’s target strength will be cut from 82,000 to 73,000 by March 2025, and other top-level budgets must make savings by 2030 equivalent to reducing their count by 6,350, while the cost of the MOD’s civilian workforce needs to be lowered by 10% by March 2025. That finger-in-the-air cost cutting is consistent with neither basic resource management principles, nor the new threat environment faced by the west. The Department’s financial plans once again assume further unspecified workforce cuts of £2.5 billion by 2030, but it has not yet announced how it intends to achieve that, and that almost certainly does not take into account inflationary pressures on either pay or costs of remaining staff.
Armed forces housing is in a shocking state, as other right hon. and hon. Members have stated. Of the armed forces members inhabiting single accommodation blocks, just under half are satisfied with their accommodation and 36% live in poorer-grade accommodation. Despite that, the MOD has failed to invest in adequate housing, and the NAO described its planned investments as not sufficient even to prevent further deterioration in the estate, much less to improve conditions for personnel. If the MOD truly wishes to make the Army smaller but more efficient, it needs to invest in making it a more attractive destination for potential recruits, and shabby accommodation is not a particularly good place to start.
Scotland currently has 2,000 fewer soldiers stationed there than we could expect given our population share, which is doubtless a function of the recruitment issues facing the Army. The range of causal factors is not limited to accommodation, but includes remuneration. Scotland’s progressive tax system mitigates that to some extent, with rank and file often paying less tax in Scotland, while those who live off estate in Scotland pay less council tax on average, and of course they all benefit from free prescriptions.
The financial chaos leading to flip-flopping on base closures and disposals, selling off land at RM Condor in my Angus constituency and then back-pedalling on that, is not helpful either. What is the future for Redford barracks, Fort George and HMS Caledonia, and how long will the MOD stick with today’s vague disposal plans? This culture leaves communities reeling from uncertainty and saving plans that are volatile and not credible.
Scotland has 32% of the UK’s landmass and 63% of its maritime area, yet only 7% of the defence personnel, and no surface warships are stationed in Scotland.  That means that when Russia comes knocking on Scotland’s door, the Royal Navy is busy at the other end of this island and takes fully a day to engage.

Jeremy Quin: I have been containing myself during the hon. Gentleman’s speech, because I know there are other contributions to get through before I have my own go, but I cannot let him say what he has just said about the Royal Navy. It is there to protect the whole of the United Kingdom and our interests overseas. We have a huge commitment to the High North going on as I speak. We will also have the whole of our submarine fleet based in Scotland in the future, including our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, which is so vital to our interests right now.

Dave Doogan: There is a lot of chest-beating about the nuclear deterrent, but much less discussion about the cost of it. We have heard from hon. and gallant Members how much they would like to see numbers in the Army go up, but they do not talk so much about the cost of the Defence Nuclear Organisation, which is 50% higher than that of the next department, the Army. They are not so focused on that cost. Incidentally, I note the Minister in his intervention did not point out which surface warships there are in Scotland, because there are none.

Kevan Jones: They are all submarines!

Dave Doogan: That is not a surface ship. The UK’s breakneck pivot away from the European domain has been dramatically overtaken by recent events in Ukraine. The mercifully long period of relative stability in Europe is under threat in a way not seen since the war, so it is clearer than ever that the top defence priority on these islands is, and must always be, ensuring peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, as we on the SNP Benches have long argued. The MOD must re-profile its equipment plan, troop numbers and finances accordingly. In conclusion, this debate affords an excellent and very necessary opportunity for Ministers to reformulate the MOD’s finances, the force numbers and the equipment plan.

Mark Francois: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are breaking media reports of a Russian artillery strike on a maternity hospital in Mariupol, which unfortunately has resulted in a large number of casualties. I understand that the Prime Minister has condemned this as depraved. Bearing in mind the subject that we are debating, if anything that has only focused our minds. This is a tragedy that should be condemned by the whole House.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I am sure he realises, it is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record.

Chris Evans: I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for raising that point of order. If anything proves the heartlessness of Vladimir Putin, it is that news. I join the Prime Minister, as I am sure everyone in the House does, in condemning that action.
I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for opening this timely debate. Like him, I wish the Chair of the Defence Committee a speedy recovery from his minor operation. In this debate we have also witnessed the unique sight of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) finally finding some common ground with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—those of us who know both of them will know that that is an amazing sight. Both spoke of how spending decisions affect the morale of our troops.
The management of MOD spending, our equipment and the numbers of our armed forces are always important, but in the current international climate there is no room for mis-steps. The Government must respond to the threats to the UK and to European security that a Russian invasion in Europe poses. Just as Labour reassessed defence spending after the 9/11 attack on the twin towers, we expect the Government to bring forward a budget boost when the Chancellor comes to the House in exactly two weeks’ time.
Other European allies have already made this move. In the light of Russia’s invasion, Germany has announced an increase in its defence spending, including a €100 billion fund to upgrade its armed forces. Denmark also announced at the beginning of the week that it will significantly increase its defence budget. I welcome these announcements. European countries have been quick to respond to Russia’s actions, recognising that they threaten the security of Europe. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley mentioned, Germany’s recent decisions have reversed defence and foreign policy positions that have been held for decades. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has described Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as
“a turning point in the history of our continent”
and made it clear that, in order to ensure the freedom and democracy of Europe, an increase in defence spending is needed.
I want to be clear that if the Government act to increase defence spending in the next Budget, they will have Labour’s full support in doing so.

John Baron: I was in the House when the shadow Secretary of State made that announcement during the Defence Secretary’s statement earlier today. If we are to move the dial on defence spending, we need the support of both sides of the House. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the official Opposition ask for that increase in defence spending, it will not be just a one-off? It has to match our interests’ requirements, but it has to be sustainable.

Chris Evans: I think the hon. Gentleman has just written my speech for me. If he will allow me, I will develop that argument further.
Any increase in defence spending would benefit the UK economy. If done well, taxpayers’ money can be spent in a way that enables more apprenticeships, the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, and for the UK to be a world leader in design, innovation and engineering. However, mismanagement and delays of contracts, or contracts being awarded to foreign companies, will damage the UK defence sector. Unfortunately at present, public money is not being used in a way that brings the most benefit to the UK. Without steady investment and supply of contracts, British shipyards, British aerospace and, ultimately, British jobs will suffer.
When I speak with industry representatives, they tell me they want fairness, not favours; all they ask for is a level playing field. UK bids are competing in a race to the bottom with international companies that enjoy state backing. The feast and famine cycles of defence contracts leave British companies unable to prepare, or to sustain investment in apprenticeships and jobs over a long period of time. If these companies suffer, we lose our domestic defence manufacturing sector.
Labour supports the UK defence industry, which is why we believe in a “British built by default” approach to defence procurement. Our shipyards and our steel industry are national assets, and we need to see a clear plan from the Government on how we enhance these capabilities.
Concerns have been raised by the National Audit Office, the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee about the running of the MOD. Now more than ever, at a time when European security is most under threat, Ministers must ensure that the deep-rooted problems in the MOD are urgently addressed. As the NAO suggests, the Government’s new equipment plan still fails to ensure that our armed forces will get all the equipment they need. Sadly, value for money for the British taxpayer is not being guaranteed. Then, of course, there is the Ajax-shaped hole at the heart of the British Army’s future, which I am sure we will hear more about in the coming days.
In 2020, Labour welcomed the Government’s extra £16.5 billion investment in defence spending, with more scope for high-tech research and development, but the Government’s plan only papers over the cracks in the MOD’s budget. Too much of that new money will be swallowed up by the MOD’s budget black hole. The National Audit Office also states that too little has been done to reform the MOD’s controls in order to deliver this plan on time and on budget. There is also no plan to deal with massive MOD waste, despite at least £13 billion of taxpayers’ money being wasted through MOD mismanagement or misjudgment since 2010, with £4 billion wasted in the past couple of years alone while the present Defence Secretary has been in post. Unfortunately, it all points to the conclusion that the MOD is a uniquely failing Department.
If wasted expenditure had been avoided or reduced, funding would have been available to strengthen the UK’s armed forces. There would have been no need for the cuts to troops, planes, ships and equipment forced by financial pressures. For example, in last year’s integrated review, the Government cut main battle tank numbers by a third. Restoring the Challenger fleet to full strength would cost an estimated £430 million, equivalent to the money wasted by the MOD.

Jeremy Quin: As ever, I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and we believe the £4 billion figure is wholly spurious. I seem to recall that, when we cut assets, the document called it waste, and when we invested in assets, that was also waste. It is a very odd document.

Chris Evans: I am very pleased and quite proud that the Minister has looked into that document so well—it shows his due diligence. However, many of the figures in the waste dossier he refers to came from the National Audit Office’s figures. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for five years, and sat through many of those uncomfortable hearings with Defence  civil servants. It is not just land capabilities that have suffered: last year’s defence Command Paper announced that the entire fleet of Hercules aircraft would be scrapped. At a cost of about £150 million per aircraft, the fleet of 14 would have cost £2.1 billion, comparable to the amount of money that the MOD has wasted on write-offs since 2010.
I am sure Government Members will ask, “What would Labour do differently?” In Government, we would commission the NAO to conduct an across-the-board audit of MOD waste. We would also make the MOD the first Department subject to our proposed office of value for money, with a tough regime on spending decisions. The Public Accounts Committee concluded last year that the MOD’s procurement system is “broken” and “repeatedly wasting taxpayers’ money”—those are the independent Public Accounts Committee’s words, not mine. With any spending announcement on defence, a similar announcement must be made outlining the methods for tackling waste.
As the Minister refers to, Labour’s dossier on waste in the MOD between 2010 and 2021 found 67 officially confirmed cases of waste, the cost of which could have been reduced by better management. All defence projects carry a degree of financial waste, but the level of waste in the MOD goes far beyond this. Some examples that Labour has uncovered are simply embarrassing, such as £64 million wasted on admin errors. When waste on this scale is occurring alongside cuts to our armed forces and cancellations of, or reductions to, armed vehicle projects, Ministers must ensure the chronic mismanagement within the MOD is immediately addressed. Can the Minister guarantee that our troops will get the right kit when and where they need it, and does he accept that defence spending plans are forcing further cuts to our personnel?
Given the threat that Europe now faces from Vladimir Putin’s aggressive regime, it is clear we must do all we can to halt the cuts to our armed forces. Now is the time to reassess our defence spending. We must ensure that our armed forces have the equipment they need, when they need it. We must build a strong defence industry and use public money effectively. We must respond to the new threats in Europe. Labour stands ready to support an increase in defence spending, support our NATO allies, and—above all—support the brave men and women who are serving in our armed forces.

Jeremy Quin: It has been a fascinating debate, ably kicked off by the Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). He, like so many of the Labour contributors to this debate, is part of the respectable wing of his party. It is, I think, a great relief to the country that we have my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as our Prime Minister at this time, rather than the proposition presented to us by the Labour party at the last election. The leadership he is showing in these difficult circumstances is exemplary.
This has been a fabulous debate, and it is a sadness to me that the time allocated is in no way sufficient to reflect the passion of the contributions and their quality,  the huge admiration we have for our serving personnel, or the vital importance of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to as this critical insurance premium for our country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referred to so poignantly in his point of order, it is so shocking that we are debating these issues while war rages in our own continent—that ghastly barbarity to which my right hon. Friend alluded.
Like so many speakers this afternoon, I pay tribute to the extraordinary defence of their country that has been mounted by the Ukrainian forces and civilians. Last summer, I was privileged to attend the 30th anniversary of Ukraine’s freedom celebrations and saw President Zelensky among his own people. I would never have imagined then the emotional scenes we saw yesterday in this House. As the integrated review recognised almost a year ago, the view that post the Berlin wall coming down we would enjoy a perpetual peace dividend could not and should not be assumed. Old aggressors have been reanimated and new dangers have arisen, requiring a forward-leaning and agile armed forces. We need to be prepared to defend and deter threats emanating from Russia and from states that violate international law in such reprehensible and egregious ways.

Mark Francois: We have seen in Mariupol today what the Russians are truly capable of. We must now deter further adventurism. On that point, will the Minister conduct an urgent review of the operational availability of all our equipment? Where things need to be brought up to scratch quickly, will he issue urgent operational requirements—UORs; he knows what I am talking about—to do whatever we need to do to have all our equipment on top line, should we need it, and can we start with Type 45?

Jeremy Quin: I reassure my right hon. Friend that we are absolutely focused on making certain that we have proper operational availability. On Type 45, as he may be aware, Dauntless has come out of the power improvement project and is now on sea trials. Daring has gone into Cammell Laird. We are looking at ways we can advance that process, but I would say that we have two Type 45s out on station doing their job even as I speak.
As the integrated review and defence Command Paper set out a year ago, Russia poses
“the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”
The IR also emphasised the need to strengthen NATO, which is critical to preserving our security and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Bob Stewart: I thank my very good friend the Minister for allowing me to intervene on him. The point is that the IR is broken. We clearly need more people in our armed forces, particularly in the infantry. If there is a message from the House, which seems to be in agreement, it is that we need to spend more on defence—up to 3%—and to reverse the cuts, before it is too late, to the infantry. I declare my interest as an ex-Mercian Regiment officer.

Jeremy Quin: I recognise what my right hon. and gallant Friend says and his particular interest in the 2nd Battalion the Mercians. I will not repeat everything that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said in his statement today, but I ask him to bear in mind what we have done over the past two weeks to show our commitment from the eastern Mediterranean, to the high north, to Estonia. By land, sea and air, we have proved our ability to act fast to maintain deterrence alongside our NATO partners.
To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), one aspect of the IR was the importance of continuing to train and look after the forces of other friendly nations outside of NATO. He is absolutely right that 22,000 Ukrainian troops are defending their nation now, having had the benefit of training with the British armed forces. As the House knows, we have continued to provide defensive weapons to their support. In reference to the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), having defence assets is one aspect, but as he rightly alluded to, having intelligence to inform our actions and showing leadership are the multipliers that enable us to play an even greater role within our alliances, of which our support to Ukraine is a prime example.
We are aware of that growing threat. This Government provided defence with a four-year settlement and a £24 billion increase in the defence budget. That money, which takes the annual defence budget to more than £47 billion for 2022-23 and our equipment plan to more than £238 billion over 10 years, enables us to modernise and improve the defence enterprise. The International Institute for Strategic Studies independently confirmed that the UK maintained its position as the second largest defence spender in NATO and the largest defence spender in Europe.
Consequently, to reassure the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and his Carl Gustaf, in the coming years, the Royal Navy will have new ships as our fleet increases beyond the 19 frigates and destroyers that we already have, with the steel cut for our first Type 31 frigate, HMS Venturer; HMS Glasgow in build on the Clyde; and consideration already beginning of the Type 32s. That will be underpinned by the doubling of investment in the shipbuilding sector over the life of this Parliament to more than £1.7 billion  a year.
To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), we are continuing to invest in the RAF and particularly in cutting-edge capabilities such as the European common radar system mark 2, which is a fantastic radar system, to meet the operational threats of the future. We are also investing more than £2 billion over the next four years in the sixth generation future combat air system.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly given hon. Members’ comments, the Army is receiving significant investment. It may be leaner but it is more agile and will have greater lethality. We are modernising the Challenger main battle tank; my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is absolutely right that there is a role for tanks on the battlefield of the future and we recognise that. There will be 50 new Apache attack helicopters on top of the investment of more than £3 billion over the next decade in the accelerated  procurement of Boxer to help to modernise our fleet and ensure that our Army is better integrated with its NATO allies.
We have established the National Cyber Force. We are spending an additional £1.4 billion over the next decade on space. If anyone believes that investing in those new domains is discretionary, it is not: only last November, in an act of dangerous irresponsibility, Russia tested an anti-satellite missile. We all know how much we depend on space and space intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Critically, thanks to our defence Command Paper, we have reversed a long decline in research and development expenditure, which has been ongoing since 1989, with £6.6 billion ringfenced for R&D over the next four years. On procurement, I know that hon. Members support the Government’s commitment to maintaining the nuclear deterrent, as shown by the overwhelming majority of this House who voted to renew it in July 2016.
We remain the leading European NATO ally, clearly exceeding our 2% of GDP defence spending target. We will ensure that the extra £24 billion that we have to invest in defence is spent wisely and appropriately. We will also ensure that, as we made clear in the IR, with that £24 billion of extra investment in defence, we will have the armed forces that we require to deter and defend. We are equally determined that our defence investment continues to match the threat of the future. I commend these estimates to the House.

John Spellar: With the leave of the House, tonight the Minister has heard a clear message. The peace not only of Ukraine but of Europe and the wider world is under threat and we must restate our commitment to our collective security through NATO backed by our nuclear capability. We must also have a reset of our plans and budget; our defence procurement process; and our doctrine, intelligence and messaging. I hope that that message has been heard loud and clear not only by the Minister but by the Treasury. The first test of that will be in the Budget debate at the end of the month. Can the Minister convey that message clearly to the Chancellor?
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54(4)).

Supplementary Estimates 2021-22

Department for Education

Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022, for expenditure by the Department for Education: (1) the resources authorised for current purposes be reduced by £484,799,000 as set out in HC 1152,
(2) the resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £385,099,000 as so set out, and
(3) the sum authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £29,468,000.

Ministry of Defence

Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022, for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £7,167,368,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1152, and
(2) the resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £67,644,000 as so set out.
The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on motions 3 to 6 together.

Supplementary Estimates 2021-22 (Navy) Vote A

Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2021-22, HC 981, be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

Estimates 2022-23 (Navy) Vote A

Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2023, a number not exceeding 39,550 all ranks be maintained for Naval and Marine Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2022-23, HC 980.

Estimates 2022-23 (Army) Vote A

Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2023, a number not exceeding 109,670 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2022-23, HC 980.

Estimates 2022-23 (Air) Vote A

Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2023, a number not exceeding 36,500 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2022-23, HC 980.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Estimates, Excesses 2020-21

[Relevant documents: Fortieth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess votes 2020-21: Serious Fraud Office, HC 1099.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2021:
resources, not exceeding £144,494,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statements of Excesses 2020-21, HC 1006 and HC 1154.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Supplementary Estimates 2021-22

Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £307,383,532,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1005, HC 1120, HC 1135 and HC 1152,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £6,407,284,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £21,485,755,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Estimates, Vote on Account 2022-23

Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2023:
(1) resources, not exceeding £351,632,860,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1004, HC 1119, HC 1126, HC 1134, HC 1153, HC 1155 and HC 1159,
(2) resources, not exceeding £58,924,316,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £361,722,188,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Simon Clarke, Lucy Frazer, John Glen and Helen Whately bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
Lucy Frazer accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2021, 31 March 2022 and 31 March 2023; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for those years; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 279).

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on motions 10 to 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Medicines

That the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to the Early Access to Medicines Scheme) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.
That the draft Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.

Building and Buildings

That the draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The disgraceful and murderous attack on the hospital in Mariupol in Ukraine was mentioned earlier. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, it has been reported that many hundreds of people have been injured and killed. Are you aware of whether there will be a statement on this tomorrow? We are very conscious that these are innocent people unable to help themselves, as well as the doctors and nurses who were helping them. I believe what we have seen is a war crime—an indiscriminate  attack by Russia on the innocent—and I believe that the House would agree with that. Madam Deputy Speaker, will there be a statement on this tomorrow? I think it warrants a statement, and I would like to think we in this House would have a chance to express our views tomorrow.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. He is quite right, as others have, to draw attention to this terrible attack, which I know we are all finding very distressing. I have not been informed that there will be a statement tomorrow. Of course, he is aware that there are other ways—for example, by an urgent question—that this matters can be raised. However, Defence Ministers are here, and they will have heard the concern expressed around the Chamber.

Shared Transport: Government Policy Objectives

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Ben Bradshaw: I secured this debate because, having joined the Transport Committee about a year ago, I became struck by how little attention is being given to the multiple ways in which car clubs and other shared transport can help national and local governments meet their multiple policy objectives. Shared transport is about giving people access to cars, bikes, and other vehicles, without the need to own them. I should perhaps declare an interest: my husband and I have not owned a car for more than 25 years. When we need one, which is much less often than we thought we would, we use the south-west’s fantastic car sharing scheme, Co Cars, which is a co-operative based in Exeter of which I was one of the founder members.
For those who do not know how such schemes work, they can vary a bit, as can the ownership models. Essentially, however, someone registers, then they book the car or van nearest to them online, using an app in some cases. They pick it up using a smart card, and they drive it away, returning it when they are finished. It is simple, and much cheaper than buying and owning a car oneself, and there are no insurance, maintenance, or parking headaches.
As well as the cost, there are climate change, air quality, local amenity and congestion advantages to car sharing. According to the RAC Foundation, the average private car sits doing nothing for 96.5% of its life. What a waste of money and valuable urban space. As we transition to e-vehicles as a country over the next few years, simply replacing private internal combustion vehicles with electric ones will not be enough to meet our zero carbon targets, and it will do nothing to tackle congestion. In fact, one could argue that with people feeling less inhibited to drive if they are driving an e-vehicle, it is likely that congestion will get worse, without a reduction in the total number of private vehicles on our roads.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point, and this issue concerns us all across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does he agree that by not involving and co-ordinating with car clubs and the shared transport sector, we are missing the potential for getting people off the roads and into shared transport? That would benefit the environment—he has referred to that—and it would also help people’s pressed finances.

Ben Bradshaw: I agree with that. Car clubs represent a fantastic resource for both national Government and local government to achieve exactly those aims.
There are currently around 6,000 car club vehicles in the United Kingdom. The number of active car club members—that is people who have joined, renewed their membership or used a car club in the last 12 months— is approaching half a million, which is a massive 96% increase in just one year. Total membership is 784,122, which is a 24% increase on the previous year. The transport sharing umbrella organisation, CoMoUK, has found that for every car club vehicle, 18.5 private  cars are taken off the roads, taking into account the reduction in the number of cars owned by members and purchases that do not take place.
Nationally, because car club vehicles are on average just over 1.5 years old, their carbon emissions are an average of 26% lower than the average car in the United Kingdom. In Exeter we are lucky to have more than 50 Co Cars, including 20 electric vehicles, and more than 150 electric bikes—they are somewhere on a street near you. Some 11% of car club cars nationally are electric, compared with less than 1% of privately owned cars across the United Kingdom. That makes driving an electric car not just possible for those who cannot afford it, but easily accessible. Access and social equity are crucial, and 20% of car club members stated that although they could not afford to buy a private car, joining a car club gave them access to one when they needed one.
Car sharing also accelerates modal shift. Since joining a car club, 16% of people said that they had walked more, 10% said that they had cycled more and 26% said that they had cut their car use overall. I stress that shared transport covers a range of other modes including bikes, e-scooters—in trial areas only, of course—demand-responsive transport such as flexible buses and lift share. It also includes so-called mobility hubs: places that enable people to switch easily between public, active and shared transport modes. Bicycle sharing has been shown to be a powerful tool to re-engage lapsed cyclists, with 50% of bike share members in the UK saying that it was the trigger to get them back on a bike again and 53% saying they would have made their last trip by car or taxi if bike share had not been available.
The COP26 declaration on accelerating the transition to 100% zero-emission cars and vans, signed by the UK Government, states:
“We recognise that alongside the shift to zero emission vehicles, a sustainable future for road transport will require wider system transformation, including support for active travel, public and shared transport, as well as addressing the full value chain impacts from vehicle production, use and disposal.”
The Secretary of State for Transport, in the foreword to the transport decarbonisation plan in 2021, said:
“We cannot simply rely on the electrification of road transport, nor believe that zero emission cars and lorries will solve all our problems.”
The Minister—I am pleased to see her in her place—told the conference of CoMoUK in December last year that shared mobility must become the norm across the UK and that the country needed to do more to move away from
“20th century thinking centred around private vehicle ownership”
and introduce
“greater flexibility, with personal choice and low carbon shared transport.”
Hear, hear to that.
So everyone agrees that shared transport is a positive thing that can help us meet multiple policy objectives. The challenge is to create a coherent cross-Government departmental policy framework and support for it. I will give a few examples.
First, on electric vehicle charging, car clubs are explicitly excluded from on-street residential charging schemes and are not positively included in any public funding framework or guidance. We have been told that an EV infrastructure strategy is coming “soon” for a while now, and there is also potentially a new EV infrastructure fund, but again we have not had any publication or details about that, and we have had no indication of whether any of that will necessarily improve the current position. That is despite, as I said earlier, car clubs having 11 times the proportion of EVs in their fleets as the general UK car fleet and providing access to EVs at a fraction of the cost of leasing or owning one.
Secondly, on guidance to local authorities, the transport decarbonisation plan promised a local authority toolkit in 2021, but that has yet to appear. It also stated that the Department would support car clubs to go fully zero-emission, recognising that, as car club fleets contain newer vehicles, they can lead the transition to zero-emission vehicles. However, again, we have not yet had any further details on that.
Thirdly, national planning policy still does not do enough to favour decarbonising options such as shared transport in spatial planning. Shared transport is not usually included in scheme design at all, and the national planning policy framework makes it difficult for councils to refuse applications that do not go far enough on shared transport proposals. Many good councils such as my own in Exeter want to limit parking provision and require mobility hubs and transport sharing schemes as well as good cycling and walking provision in development plans, but the planning system neither recognises nor encourages that. Mobility hubs play a particularly valuable role in areas with high levels of pollution and low sustainable transport accessibility levels, and they should be pursued by national and local government.
Local government should also be required to actively support shared transport to achieve modal shift, placing it at the heart of its transport strategies. It should also develop sustainable transport hierarchies to recognise the different role that shared cars play as opposed to privately owned vehicles, and include data from shared transport in official transport statistics for the area.
Fourthly, traffic regulation orders are cumbersome and expensive. A consultation on improving the system to make it quicker and more innovative and adaptable was promised, but again it has not appeared.
Fifthly, public transport accessibility levels should be updated to sustainable transport accessibility levels, which would encompass all forms of sustainable transport, including shared transport.
Sixthly, on taxation, the current system is based entirely on the private ownership of cars, with shared transport paying the same full rate of VAT as privately owned ones. The Treasury could help a lot by tweaking the tax regime in a revenue-neutral way, if needs be, to incentivise vehicle sharing.
Seventhly, we would like to know where the future of transport Bill is. It appears to be stuck somewhere in Government, meaning that we will soon reach the second anniversary of the e-scooter trials at a time when every other developed nation has either legalised and regulated them or has committed to doing so.
I know that the Minister shares my enthusiasm for shared transport as a multiple solution to her transport challenges and those we all face, and I look forward with interest to her response.

Trudy Harrison: I am delighted to be speaking about shared transport, but I was even more delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) refer to his co-forming the car club in his local area. I would welcome a meeting to discuss in more detail exactly how he went about that and the lessons learned, and perhaps that can inform how we help other areas. I am thinking particularly of rural areas, because I represent my home village in the Lake District, and I see an opportunity for car clubs to be of great assistance to people living in rural and urban areas.
I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate on shared transport. He clearly set out seven measures relating to how we could improve shared transport and make it more accessible to everyone. I listened to the issues that he raised and I will do my best to address them all. As he knows, we are committed to creating a future transport system that works for absolutely everyone. My Department and I are making sure that transport is accessible to all, meaning that people in our cities, towns, villages and everywhere else have greater choice and greater freedom to get around. We want to see safer streets, more accessible and fairer travel, smoother journeys and better infrastructure to create the cleaner, quieter and less congested transport system that we all want.
Before I talk about the work that is already under way in my Department, I want to mention why we are doing this. Shared transport has the potential to improve choice, creating greater freedoms when travelling. Shared transport such as car clubs and lift sharing is about using what we have more efficiently. I love cars. I have been driving for 28 years, would you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Jim Shannon: I do not believe that; the hon. Lady is just too young.

Trudy Harrison: I thank the hon. Member for that comment.
I do not personally own a car, and it is perhaps not a car club that I have with my husband, who does own our car. However, when I think about my personal circumstances—we drive a seven-seater, primarily because I have four daughters, although nowadays it is more about the pub run than the school run—I ask: do I always want to drive a seven-seater? Sometimes it might be more appropriate to drive a smaller car or maybe, living in the Lake District, a convertible car to really enjoy the scenic views in my community. That is the choice. This is not about people not being able to own cars. We welcome that ability, but this is about the opportunity to do things differently.
As the right hon. Member for Exeter mentioned, the average car is parked at home for 80% of the time. It is parked elsewhere for 16% of the time and is on the move for only 4% of the time, on average. That shows the massive potential for greater sharing to allow people  without cars greater access to the economy and flexibility in how they travel. Some 7 million front gardens—the equivalent of 100 Hyde Parks—now contain concrete and cars, rather than flowers, grass, bees, butterflies and biodiversity. We also know that about 25% of adults in England do not hold a full driving licence, and only a quarter of people aged 17 to 20 are in that category. In our area, learning to drive is often considered a passport to adulthood, but it should not have to be. It is about flexible choice.
New transport options can mean greater access for those who are not able to travel independently or who do not currently have many choices. Car clubs can provide a cheaper alternative; 20% of car club users say that they joined a club because they could not afford a car. If we can show that sharing is a safe, efficient and cost-effective alternative, it could be a major benefit to our communities, meaning less isolation, less loneliness and greater access to the economy and services.
Major changes are already under way in the transport sector. Services are becoming more digital and more data-driven, with apps to plan and pay for journeys becoming the norm. Electrification and the move towards zero-emission vehicles is well under way as we roll out charging infrastructure across the country. We are already seeing early self-driving vehicle technology on our roads, and the UK is a world leader in the testing and deployment of self-driving vehicles.
Business models such as car clubs, and a greater emphasis on sharing, provide greater choice to the public while helping to cut emissions and decongest our roads. As the right hon. Member for Exeter mentioned, we are also trialling rental e-scooters across the country, including in my constituency of Copeland, which can help to decongest our roads and reduce emissions, particularly for shorter journeys. In making regulations to enable trials of rental e-scooters, my Department had significant support from local areas keen to trial them in a safe and controlled way. The trials supported my Department’s green restart of local transport and helped to mitigate the reduced capacity on public transport that resulted from the pandemic. They also enable us to gather robust and meaningful data to decide whether e-scooters should be more widely and permanently legalised, as well as assessing their safety and their wider impact.
Shared bikes are now a common UK service available in cities, providing us with more choice and flexibility in getting from A to B. I was delighted to hear that the right hon. Member’s local club provides bikes as well as cars.
These are just some of the ways in which transport is already changing. We can expect the transport system of tomorrow to look radically different from today’s. As things expand and evolve, the changes will present opportunities for more people to have access to training and jobs. They will also enable businesses to have access to highly skilled staff, which will help to level up places that are left behind. The ability for people and goods to move around efficiently and cleanly is a key driver of the change that we want to see, and more access to shops and services will provide a boost for the economy. That is why we are determined and are working to support businesses and communities to ensure that the changes are positive and make a genuine difference to the way we travel.
The right hon. Member mentioned our transport decarbonisation plan. Supporting the changes under way in transport will improve how we get around, but there are major environmental challenges ahead and we need to make the most of those changes to meet the challenges head on. That is why we have set such high ambitions for the future of transport in this country. Last summer, my Department published the first TDP in the world, which sets the transport sector on the path to net zero by 2050, and in which we have set ourselves a wide range of ambitious commitments across all modes of transport. The plan also shows the benefits of decarbonisation that are there to be seized: significant economic growth, job creation and the emergence of new technologies to improve transport in the UK.
Our commitments to supporting shared transport mean greater choice and freedom and more efficient ways to travel. We have committed to measures that will ensure a better, more flexible transport system while delivering on our net zero ambitions. We are helping businesses to see the benefits of shared transport and more sustainable transport, and are providing guidance to help local authorities manage and deliver schemes to support businesses and communities.
Let me update the House on the progress that the Department has made on shared transport, and respond to the points raised by the right hon. Member. We have worked closely with leading stakeholders since the publication of the transport decarbonisation plan to start delivering on our commitments. I have met leading shared-transport organisations such as CoMoUK—which the right hon. Member mentioned—Liftshare, which I understand was instrumental in the commissioning of the car club in Exeter, and the Urban Mobility Partnership, which represents leading operators including Enterprise and Stagecoach. In November I visited California, where I signed a memorandum of understanding between the UK and the city of Los Angeles to foster co-operation on the challenges of decarbonising transport, supporting innovation and growth, and accelerating the deployment of emerging technologies that can improve our communities.
We have already launched a consultation on Mobility as a Service, and we aim to publish new guidance to help shape the emergence of these platforms in the UK. This will mean that planning and paying for a journey will be easier, quicker, and more accessible.
The right hon. Member mentioned the transport decarbonisation toolkit, which my Department will publish soon. We recognise that local authorities are key partners in rolling out the infrastructure, developing and implementing new policies, and learning from best practice, and the toolkit will enable them to start delivering schemes that will benefit local communities. It provides practical advice on setting up car clubs and other shared transport schemes, and on helping to improve transport planning by putting shared and sustainable modes at the heart of local transport plans. That means support for zero- emission car clubs too, so that communities throughout the UK can benefit from electric vehicles. My Department, through the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles, is supporting charging infrastructure rollout to meet this demand. There are currently about 27,000 public charge points in the country, of which 5,200 are rapid. We know that the process needs to be accelerated,  and we are working apace to do just that. Project Rapid, for example, will ensure that we have at least six rapid chargers of at least 150 kW in all 117 motorway service areas in England.
The right hon. Member referred to the on-street residential chargepoint scheme, which supports public on-street electric vehicle charging. While it does not fund chargepoints dedicated to car club vehicles, such vehicles can and do use the infrastructure, which means that they are still able to benefit from the roll-out of the infrastructure. Officials are currently developing the scope and design of the upcoming local electric vehicle infrastructure scheme, and we will be able to say more about that in the infrastructure strategy, which the right hon. Member also mentioned and which we aim to publish very shortly in the coming weeks.
We are developing the Commute Zero programme with the aim of reducing the number of single-occupancy journeys. Reducing it by just 10% could remove half a million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, the equivalent of doubling rail use. We published “Future of Mobility: Urban Strategy” in 2019, setting out clear principles for the development of our transport systems in cities and towns. This year we will publish a “Future of Transport: rural strategy” to ensure that the benefits of innovation are felt by our rural and remote communities.
On accessibility, I am committed to the inclusivity of our transport networks, and our inclusive transport strategy is intended to create a transport system that is accessible to all. Our future of transport strategies highlight the need for future transport technologies to be inclusive by design, designed with disabled people in mind from the outset. We have been working with organisations such as Motability. We know that shared transport can provide more opportunities and options, helping us to meet our ambition for disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else and to be able to travel confidently, easily and without extra cost.
The national planning policy framework includes policies to facilitate access to high quality public transport and indicates that all development should address the needs of disabled people in relation to all modes of transport. We are also considering how we can empower local authorities to locate development around areas of high levels of access to sustainable transport modes, and where high quality walking and cycling routes can be developed, actively promoting sustainable transport and active travel as the first choice for journeys. As the Prime Minister has set out, we want half of all journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled by 2030, and to do just that, we have appointed Chris Boardman as the interim chief executive of Active Travel England to work with the Department and local authorities, and to support and—in his words, I believe—not just encourage but enable people to walk and cycle.
With regard to the consultation on the proposed reforms to the traffic regulation order process mentioned by the right hon. Member, I am pleased to say that that consultation was launched on Monday. Digitisation of the TRO process will bring an archaic system up to speed with the modern world while providing rich geospatial data to support the better management of traffic, deliveries and parking. He also mentioned legislation. I am pleased to say that, as soon as parliamentary time allows, we intend to bring forward legislation that will bring about  wider reforms to prepare the UK for the future of transport in the technological revolution that is under way.
On the matter of taxation, this is a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury, as the right hon. Member knows, and I will follow up on his points on taxation with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I want to conclude by thanking the right hon. Member for securing this debate. As I hope I have explained, shared transport is a vital part of how we secure a future transport system that is sustainable, accessible and available to everyone in society. Today he has raised a number of important issues that my Department and I are working hard to tackle through our transport decarbonisation plan and  our future of transport programme. We are working to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from the innovations in transport, building on the rich heritage and the motor industry through which the UK is proud to have played a part in the global way that people have got from A to B. We are working to ensure that the people have greater freedom and choice in how to travel, and we are doing our part to make our communities cleaner and safer.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Environmental Protection

That the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 2.
Question accordingly agreed to.